Manufacturing Discontent: the Rise to Power of Anti-TTIP Groups

Home , Alteglofsheim, Ascheberg (Westfalen), Bad Bederkesa, Bad Sassendorf, Bad Zwischenahn, Bavaria Party

ECIPE OCCASIONAL PAPER • 02/2016

Manufacturing Discontent:

The Rise to Power of Anti-TTIP Groups

By Matthias Bauer, Senior Economist*

*Special thanks to Karen Rudolph (Otto-Friedrich-University Bamberg) and Agnieszka Smiatacz (Research Assistant at ECIPE) for research support all along the process of the preparation of this study. ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

ABSTRACT

Old beliefs, new symbols, new faces. In 2013, a small group of German green and left- wing activists, professional campaign NGOs and well-established protectionist organisations set up deceptive communication campaigns against TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the United States. Germany’s anti-TTIP NGOs explicitly aimed to take German-centred protests to other European countries. Their reasoning is contradictory and logically inconsistent. Their messages are targeted to serve common sense protectionist demands of generally ill-informed citizens and politicians. Thereby, anti-TTIP communication is based on metaphoric messages and far-fetched myths to effectively evoke citizens’ emotions. Together, these groups dominated over 90 percent of online media reporting on TTIP in Germany.

Anti-TTIP protest groups in Germany are not only inventive; they are also resourceful. Based on generous public funding and opaque private donations, green and left-wing political parties, political foundations, clerical and environmental groups, and well-established anti-globalisation organisations maintain influential campaign networks. Protest groups’ activities are coordinated by a number of former and current green and left-wing politicians and political parties that search for anti-establishment political profiles. As Wallon blockage mentality regarding CETA, the trade and investment agreement between the European Union and Canada, demonstrates, Germany’s anti-TTIP groups’ attempts to undermine EU trade policy bear the risk of coming to fruition in other Eurpean countries. And they carry the real possibility of depriving EU Member States from new economic opportunities and economic convergence.

For Germany, we analyse a unique and comprehensive dataset of 1,508 publicly held “TTIP information” events to study the “local” (offline) politics of TTIP. We find that hostile anti-TTIP sentiment in Germany has not at all developed bottom-up. Leading protest campaign organisations literally manufactured discontent about TTIP. Widespread aversion to TTIP in Germany is the result of an orchestrated, top-down campaign initiative launched by a small number of long-established, well-connected and, thus, highly influential politicians of Germany’s Green and left-wing political parties and associated NGO campaign managers masquerading and operating under the guise of pro-democracy, pro-environment and pro-Christian civil society.

Nimble institutional structures, common ideological mind-sets and a strong affinity to modern online media allowed Germany’s anti-TTIP NGOs to turbo-charge online and on-the-ground protest activities in other European countries. At EU level, the European Commission itself provided enourmous financial funding to a great number of declared anti-TTIP campaign NGOs – in full knowledge about these organisations’ ideologically driven, all too often deceptive, and therefore destructive, ways of political campaigning.

2 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract 2 List of Figures 4 Executive Summary 6

1. Introduction 13 2. Germans’ Aversion to TTIP – Why the TTIP Agreement is so Different 14 3. What Do Germans Think About TTIP? 16 4. Anti-TTIP NGOs Exploiting Slacktivism: Messages and Information Spread about TTIP in Germany (and Austria) 23 5. Dataset and Methodological Considerations 27 5.1. The Dataset 27 5.2. Coding of Event Data 28 6. (Anti-) TTIP Campaign Work in Germany 30 6.1. Hosts and Organisers of TTIP Events in Germany 30 6.2. Thematic Issues Addressed by TTIP Events in Germany 37 6.3. Regional Distribution of TTIP Events in Germany 39 6.4. TTIP Experts and Speakers in Germany 40 6.5. Horse(s) and Rider(s) in Anti-TTIP Campaign Work in Germany 47 6.5.1. Top 50 Speakers on TTIP and Institutional Affiliations 48 6.5.2. Top Influencers and Institutional Networks within Germany’s Anti-TTIP Political Campaign Scene 54 6.5.3. Anti-TTIP Influencer Index 64 6.6. A Glance at Austria 67 7. The Dominant Role of German Organisations in Europe’s Anti-TTIP Campaign Scene 70 8. The European Commission’s Role in Financing Anti-TTIP Protest NGOs 77 9. The Role of Russia in Shaping Public Opinion about TTIP 83 10. Theses and Concluding Remarks 87

References 90

3 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: What Germans Associate with Market and Government-Planned Economies 15 Figure 2: Development of Search Interest for TTIP, May 2013 to June 2016 16 Figure 3: Google Search Interest by Country 17 Figure 4: Most Popular Google Search Queries Related to TTIP 18 Figure 5: European Citizens’ Feelings About TTIP Versus Germany and Austria 19 Figure 6: European Citizens’ Feelings About a “Transatlantic FTA” and a “TTIP” Between the EU and the US 19 Figure 7: Popularity Discount on “TTIP” Versus “Transatlantic FTA” in European Countries 20 Figure 8: European Citizens’ Sentiment Towards TTIP 20 Figure 9: TTIP Support and Youth Unemployment in the EU 21 Figure 10: TTIP Support and State of Intra-EU Economic Development 22 Figure 11: Number of Visits of EU Commission’s Official TTIP Negotiation Texts’ Webpage Versus Number of Signatures Collected by “Stop TTIP” Campaign Organisations 27 Figure 12: Distribution of Major Groups of Stakeholders Organising on TTIP 32 Figure 13: Top 20 Business Associations Organising TTIP Events in Germany, by Number of Hosted Events 33 Figure 14: Number of Individual Businesses Organising TTIP Events in Germany, by Number of Hosted Events 33 Figure 15: Top 30 “Declared” Anti-TTIP Campaign Network Member Organisations, by Number of Hosted Events 35 Figure 16: Political Parties, by Number of Hosted Events 36 Figure 17: Political Parties’ Event Activity Adjusted by Voters’ Support, Index Value 37 Figure 18: Major Subjects Addressed by TTIP Events in Germany 38 Figure 19: Sentiment Conveyed by Event Header 38 Figure 20: Development of Most Frequent Controversial Subjects Over Time, Absolute Numbers 39 Figure 21: Development of Most Frequent Controversial Subjects Over Time, Relative Proportion 39 Figure 22: Number of TTIP Events Broken Down by German Federal State 40 Figure 23: Distribution of Major Groups of Stakeholders’ Speakers at TTIP Events in Germany 41 Figure 24: Number of Speakers Affiliated with Business Associations (Top 20) 42 Figure 25: Number Speakers Affiliated with Individual Businesses 42 Figure 26: Number of Speakers at TTIP Events in Germany, by “Declared” Anti-TTIP Campaign Member Organisation (Top 30) 43 Figure 27: Number of Speakers from Political Parties 45 Figure 28: Political Parties’ Speaker Activity Adjusted By Voters’ Support, Index Value 46 Figure 29: Political Foundations in the TTIP Debate in Germany 46 Figure 30: Top 50 TTIP Experts in Germany and Institutional Affiliations 62 Figure 31: Anti-TTIP Campaign Groups’ Speakers (Among Top 50 Speakers on TTIP in Germany) and Institutional Affiliations 63 Figure 32: Anti-TTIP Influencer Index 65 Figure 33: Distribution of Major Groups of Stakeholders Organising on TTIP in Austria 67 Figure 34: Distribution of Major Groups of Stakeholders Organising on TTIP, Germany Versus Austria 68 Figure 35: Austria’s Top “declared” Anti-TTIP Campaign Network Member Organisations, by Number of Hosted Events 68 Figure 36: Top TTP-Related Subjects Addressed by TTIP Events in Austria 69

4 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Figure 37: Country of Origin of Declared Anti-TTIP Member Organisations of the “Self-Organised European Citizens Initiative (ECI)” Against TTIP 72 Figure 38: Relative Number of Citizens Signing Up for an European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) Against TTIP 72 Figure 39: Number and Country of Origin of Anti-TTIP ECI Members Versus Quorum Achieved at National Level 73 Figure 40: German Dominance Over Anti-TTIP Tweets on Twitter, @eci_ttip (Stop TTIP) 74 Figure 41: Anti-TTIP and Anti-TPP Organisations Funded by Germany’s Campact Including Campaign Funding and Funding for the Establishment of Infrastructure for Political Education 75 Figure 42: Top 3 TTIP-Related Topical Issues by Country 76 Figure 43: (EU) Funding and Spending on Trade and Investment Projects, Transnational Institute 79 Figure 44: Sentiment of TTIP-Related Online Media Reporting, Russia Today Versus Total Media Reporting 84 Figure 45: Sentiment of Country-Specific TTIP-Related Online Media Reporting, Russia Today Versus Total Media Reporting 86

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Narratives and Phrases Spread on TTIP by Germany’s Most Active Anti-TIPP Organisations 24 Table 2: Validity Check of Claims Spread by Germany’s Anti-TTIP Groups 25 Table 3: Declared Anti-TTIP Groups’ Sponsored TTIP Advertisements on Google Search Engine 26 Table 4: Top 50 TTIP Event Speakers and Institutional Affiliation 49 Table 5: TTIP-Related Comments and Statements of Bernd Lange 56 Table 6: TTIP-Related Comments and Statements of Sven Giegold 57

5 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On Germany’s Anti-TTIP Scene

1. Ideology-driven clicktivism, paid anti-TTIP advertisments on online search engines, a hijacked public consultation on investment protection, a de facto loss of the EU’s legal competences in trade policy, and Wallonia blocking the EU’s most advanced free trade agreement CETA – originating in Germany, fierce, forceful and deceptive anti-TTIP campaigning by super-connected anti-TTIP campaign NGOs not only managed to turn the public debate about TTIP toxic; it also brought about the deepest crisis in the history of EU trade policy.

2. Opinion polls indicate that the majority of EU citizens are in favour of TTIP. At the same time, Germans (and Austrians) drop out of their presumed roles of being reasonable supporters of well-regulated free trade and open markets. Survey data suggest that some 70 percent of German citizens oppose TTIP, almost twice the average of other EU countries. Due to unprecedented campaigning against TTIP and the proliferation of powerful metaphors, the public debate about TTIP in Germany turned toxic. Public opinion about TTIP in Germany got so tainted that it became even politically expedient for pro-TTIP-negotiations political parties to withdraw from the debate. Similarly, due to fears of reputation (ergo revenue) losses, it became economically rational for private sector proponents of TTIP negotiations to keep their distance.

3. Political observers and pollsters alike negligently failed to name the principal cause of profound levels of TTIP aversion in Germany (and Austria). They failed to address the mind-penetrating force of those groups and individuals, including influential figureheads of well-established political parties, that initially set up and orchestrated an influential anti-TTIP scene in Germany – which is at the very heart of trickling anti-TTIP protest scenes in other European countries. They also failed to explain why 1.6 million Germans singed an (online) petition against TTIP when at the same time the European Commission’s German language webpage for TTIP negotiation texts received a mere 13,000 visits, amounting to only about 0.8 percent of the anti-TTIP signers in Germany.

4. Germany’s well-connected anti-TTIP NGOs originally initiated, and, ever since, orchestrate the “self-organised” European movement against TTIP. They explicitly aim to take German protests to other European countries. Thereby, the campaign network’s core institutions are not only inventive; they are also resourceful. Based on generous public funding and private donations, several long-established political parties, political foundations, environmental groups, as well as Christian clerical and anti-globalisation organisations, maintain reliable networks within and beyond Germany. They systematically reached out to NGOs in other Euro- pean countries to form a forceful anti-TTIP movement. Germany’s major anti-TTIP NGOs provided substantial financial funding (e.g. Campact) and training expertise (e.g., attac and Rosa Luxemburg foundation) to empower anti-TTIP activists in several European countries. In addition, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for International Development and Cooperation (DevCo) provided substantial amounts of public money to declared anti-TTIP NGOs to effectively raise TTIP (and EU investment policy) opposition in EU Member States.

5. Anti-TTIP sentiment in Germany is not the result of a bottom-up movement. An- ti-TTIP sentiment in Germany is the result of an orchestrated, top-down initiative launched by a small number of influential politicians of Germany’s Green and Left-wing political parties (GRUENE, DIE LINKE, the Parliamentarian Left of the SPD) and associated political campaign managers masquerading and operating under the guise of pro-democracy, pro-environment and pro-Christian (values) civil society groups. Anti-TTIP campaign operations are effec-

6 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

tively coordinated among these groups, which at individual group level attracted record-high donation contributions. At the same time, attac Germany and the protest platform Campact, which was funded by attac members in 2004, pull most of the strings in Germany’s online and offline anti-TTIP-negotiations scene.

6. In Germany (and Austria), a small number of well-connected anti-TTIP-negotiations groups managed to exploit modern online media to determine what citizens’ think about TTIP and globalisation in general. “TTIP kills” and “TTIP is an attack on democracy”: Social online media, 5-minute video clips and powerful metaphors spread via paid-for Google advertisements were anti-TTIP campaigner’s strongest weapons. Taken together, declared anti-TTIP groups dominated over 90 percent of online media reporting on TTIP in Germany. As a consequence, Google search interest for TTIP is now 3 times higher in Germany compared to Spain, 16 times higher compared to France and 40 times higher compared to Canada and the United States. At the same time, biased, negative sentiment queries are the most widely applied TTIP-related queries.

7. On search engine Google, the most queried TTIP-relevant information is for “TTIP demo”, followed by “Stop TTIP”. Contrary to anti-TTIP groups’ announcements, Germans are not intrinsically smarter than their European neighbours when it comes to economic policymaking. On the contrary, due to latent anti-Americanism, aversion to Brussels-centred policymaking and surprisingly high levels of public support of elements of central planning, forceful anti-TTIP campaigners met a firmly fertile ground. Our research shows that 8 of the 20 top globally conducted Google queries related to TTIP were entered in German language. An- other 8 queries included generic terms that generally apply for German and other languages. 6 of the top 20 queries globally are biased towards a negative “picture” of TTIP. “TTIP demo”, the German acronym for anti-TTIP protest demonstrations, ranks first in the list of global queries related to TTIP. “Stop TTIP”, an initiative against TTIP started by highly active and extremely forceful German campaign NGOs, ranks fourth.

8. Anti-TTIP groups exploited the “power of going negative”, fuelling scepticism. Simplistic, selective and deceptive metaphors now determine what a great number of Ger- man (and Austrian) citizens think about TTIP. “TTIP is an attack on democracy”, “TTIP kills”, “Kill TTIP”, “TTIP Protest Picnic”, and “Tango Against TTIP” – in Germany, anti-TTIP lobbying groups’ protest activities present themselves in colourful, but unambiguous ways. Their repeatedly stated, often virally (re)tweeted myths became mind-penetrating for many. As a result, the debate about TTIP in particular and globalisation in general turned toxic enough to make it politically or economically rational for friends of trade and open markets to keep out of the debate.

9. All politics is local, and anti-TTIP groups are aware of that matter. Our analysis of 1,508 information events on TTIP reveals a severe asymmetry in the public debate about TTIP negotiations. TTIP event headers largely convey a negative picture of TTIP. Leaving aside event headers of neutral sentiment, only 9 percent of all the remaining events headers convey a positive message, while 91 percent draw negative pictures of TTIP. At the same time, both the number of TTIP information event organisers and the number of (self-proclaimed) “TTIP experts” is distinctly skewed towards declared anti-TTIP groups. Almost 60 percent of local TTIP event organisers in Germany were declared anti-TTIP organisations. At the same time, 48 percent of all (self-proclaimed) “TTIP experts” speaking on TTIP information events were affiliated with declared anti-TTIP organisations.

7 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

10. In Germany, those political parties in favour of TTIP negotiations significantly lost out against those parties that expressed stark TTIP opposition. Declared anti-TTIP political parties show a significantly higher level of activity in organising events and sending speakers to inform and shape the debate about TTIP. Furthermore, although Germany’s Social Democrat government coalition party SPD, whose party leader Sigmar Gabriel serves as Min- ister of Economic Affairs, has not officially declared formal affiliation to anti-TTIP protest- net works in Germany (contrary to Austria’s Social Democrats), SPD politicians across all spectrums of political conviction frequently expressed ambiguous aversion to TTIP and, at the same time, sympathy to the protest NGOs’ activities.

11. Both Germany’s conservative and liberal parties have lost the prerogative of inter- preting and educating about TTIP negotiations and globalisation in general. Event numbers adjusted by voter support demonstrate that Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD), as well as Germany’s Green party (GRUENE), are more than three times as active in hosting and organising TTIP-related events as Germany’s leading conservative political parties (CDU and CSU taken together). Moreover, Germany’s left-wing party (DIE LINKE) is more than twice as active as Germany’s Christian Democrats. Similarly, Germany’s liberals (FDP) are 6 times less active than both the Greens and the Social Democrats, and 4 times less active than Germany’s left-wing party.

Germany’s green and left-wing political parties GRUENE and DIE LINKE performed poorly in the federal elections of 2013, standing at 8.4 and 8.6 percent of total votes respectively. Accord- ingly, both parties were desperately looking for new thematic issues to maintain and establish (anti-establishment) political profiles.

12. Concerning the number of “TTIP experts” speaking at local TTIP events, Ger- many’s conservative and liberal political parties do not even come close to those political parties opposing TTIP negotiations. Numbers for political parties’ speakers adjusted by voter support demonstrate that politicians of Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD), Germany’s Green party (GRUENE) and Germany’s left-wing party (DIE LINKE) were about 10 times more active in speaking on TTIP-related events than Germany’s leading conservative political parties (CDU and CSU taken together). Politicians of both the Greens and Social Democrats were more than three times as active as politicians of the Christian Democrats. Similarly, politicians of Ger- many’s left-wing party were almost three times as active as politicians of the Union of Christian Democrats (CDU and CSU). Politicians of Germany’s liberal party (FDP) were significantly less active compared to Social Democrats, Greens and the Left. Adjusted by voters’ support, however, Germany’s liberals were still more active than Christian Democrats.

13. 75 percent of Germany’s top 50 TTIP speakers (as measured by the registered number of public appearances) represent declared anti-TTIP organisations. The great majority of Germany’s most active TTIP speakers are affiliated with one or more declared anti-TTIP organisation. Almost all of Germany’s top anti-TTIP speakers work for public sector institutions, labour unions, and clerical and environmental NGOs, without considerable professional experience in private sector enterprises. Pro-TTIP-negotiations speakers are significantly outnumbered by declared anti-TTIP speakers. The group of top 50 speakers on TTIP in Germany includes 11 individuals/active politicians that are affiliated with Green party (GRUENE), 10 individuals affiliated with environmental organisations, 8 individuals/ politicians affiliated with Germany’s Social Democratic party (SPD), 7 individuals affiliated with labour unions, 6 individuals/politicians affiliated with Germany’s left-wing party (DIE LINKE), 6 individuals affiliated with clerical, i.e. Catholic or Evangelical organisations, 4 individuals affiliated with “attac Germany”, 3 individuals that are affiliated with “Mehr Demokratie”, a civil society group promoting elements of direct democracy, 2 politicians that are affiliated with the Union of Christian Democrats, and 1 politician of Germany’s liberal party FDP.

8 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

14. Germany is Russia Today’s most important marketplace for TTIP-related (bashing) news. Russian government-controlled media systematically impact on public opinion about TTIP in Germany and other European countries. Russia Today offers a telling example. Negative online media reporting of Russia Today is particularly strong in Germany (66 percent of 896 RT contributions), the Netherlands (75 percent of 156 RT contributions), the United Kingdom (82 percent of 96 RT contributions), and the United States (80 percent of 1,219 RT contributions).

For the period under study, the absolute number of media contributions spread by Russia Today in Germany was about 4 times higher than those emerging from Russia Today in France, and almost 10 times higher than in the United Kingdom. The vast majority of Russia Today’s media reporting about TTIP in Germany conveyed a distinct negative message. For Germany, 71 percent of Russia Today’s online media reporting about TTIP conveyed a negative sentiment to readers, compared to 51 percent for global online media reporting about TTIP. TTIP coverage of Russia Today is multifaceted. For example, Russia Today’s German outlet strongly promoted anti-TTIP demonstrations in Germany. It even provided an exclusive livestream of the protesters’ march in Berlin. In addition, Russia Today’s US television outlet provided detailed guidance on how to campaign against TTIP on the Internet.

15. No public information is available on how anti-TTIP campaign organisations were supported with money originating from Russian sources. It should be noted, however, that one of Germany’s most resourceful and most influential anti-TTIP campaign organisations, Campact (spending half of its campaign budget on anti-TTIP campaigns; total 2015 budget about 7 million Euro), does not publish the origin of any donation below the threshold of 5,000 Euro. According to Campact, none of its individual campaign donations exceeded the 5,000 Euro threshold level in 2015. The fact that Campact states that it did not receive any individual contribution exceeding 5,000 Euros in 2015 indicates that donations of individual groups and/ or individual persons exceeding the threshold level of 5,000 Euros (if they occurred) had to be split.

The lack of transparency of Campact and other declared anti-TTIP organisations’ finances stands in great opposition to what anti-TTIP organisations call for with respect to transparency. The lack of transparent information about the origin of donations gives rise to the concern that substantial financial funding may have arrived from pressure groups and individuals that are particularly interested in systematically adverse coverage of TTIP, including Russian sources and other vested interests.

On Europe’s Anti-TTIP Scene

16. In spring 2014, Germany’s leading anti-TTIP organisations decided to launch a European protest movement against TTIP and other trade agreements: the European “Stop TTIP” alliance including the “self-organised” European Citizens (ECI) Initiative against TTIP. EU Member States’ citizens support of the “Stop TTIP” campaign is highly asymmetric. 25 percent of all declared European “Stop TTIP” member organisations are headquartered in Germany. In addition, 48 percent of all individual signatories supporting “Stop TTIP” are Ger- many by passport.

9 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

17. The coordination centre of the European “Stop TTIP” platform is headquartered in Germany. The organisation “Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung” (“Environment and Devel- opment Forum”) with its head office in Berlin, officially serves as a platform coordinating initiatives of German organisations that focus on environmental policies and developing countries. It also acts as the coordination centre of the German anti-TTIP campaign “TTIPunfairhandelbar” and coordinates the “self-organised” European movement against TTIP. Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung has long-established ties to Germany’s major environmental organisations – of which all are declared anti-TTIP organisations – and Germany’s Green Party (GRUENE). The organisation’s major anti-TTIP campaign “TTIPunfairhandelbar” received generous financial support from Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment.

18. German anti-TTIP NGOs explicitly aim to take German protests to other Europe- an countries. Berlin-based Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung, which represents several environmental and (clerical) development policy NGOs, coordinates Germany’s anti-TTIP campaign “TTIPunfairhandelbar” (which was originally financed by Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment). It also serves as the coordination centre of the EU-wide “Stop TTIP” campaign. In addition, Campact, a professional campaign platform that was founded by members of attac in 2004, provided funding for declared anti-TTIP organisations PROGRESSI (Italy: 50,000 Euros), Skiftet (Sweden: 70,000 Euros), Uplift (Ireland: 50,000 Euros), Aufstehn (Austria: 25,000 Euros), and Fundacja Akcja Demokracja (Poland: 25,000 Euros). The money was either explicitly granted for anti-TIPP campaigns or labelled as “infrastructure for political education”. Moreover, Germany’s Rosa-Luxemburg Foundation, the government-financed political foundation of Germany’s left-wing party DIE LINKE vividly engages in anti-TTIP information events and anti-TTIP activists training events in several European countries, e.g., Belgium, Greece, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

19. The European Commission’s DG DEVCO provided substantial amounts of EU taxpayer money to declared anti-TTIP organisations, while the European Commission’s DG TRADE engaged in official TTIP negotiations.Our research revealed that the web pages of at least two declared anti-TTIP organisations were “made financially possible by EC funding through the project “Making EU Investment Policy work for Sustainable Development”: Stop TTIP Denmark and the Seattle to Brussels Network (steered by German activists). According to the EU’s Transparency Register, these two organisations did not receive any financial funding from the European Commission. We found that this EC project was originally awarded to the Stichting Transnational Institute (TNI), an advocacy institute in the Netherlands. TNI received about 700,000 Euros from the European Commission in 2013. Explicit “expected results” agreed between the EU ommission’s DG DevCo and TNI: to ensure that 3 Million EU citizens are aware of the link between investment and development, to specifically target MEPs and MEP candidates, to make 200 policymakers call for a revision of EU investment policy, to ensure that 600 civil society organisations are exposed to TNI’s messages and to ensure that 200 civil society organisations engage in eaction (i.e. online campaigns and petitions). TNI Presi- dent, Susan George, argued at a TNI-hosted anti-TTIP stakeholder conference at the European Parliament in December 2014 that “TTIP is a very dangerous animal. It is an animal that does not deserve to be on the list of protected species […], and that [TTIP] is a treaty that has to be refused absolutely and entirely”.

A fundamental question emerges: given the great degree of simplification in the provision of information on investment protection as well as the chimerical character of affiliated NGOs’ campaigning messages on the Internet, positions papers and calls to join online petitions, is this the way of policymaking that is appropriate, helpful and sustainable at and beyond EU level?

10 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

20. It is generally almost impossible to directly retrieve information about how the European Commission grants money to civil society organisations (CSOs; NGOs). It is also practically impossible for outsiders to reproduce on which terms EU taxpayer money was originally granted and how the spending and contractual terms were actually monitored by the Commission during and after the provision of public grants. The opaque funding procedures of the EU Commission to NGOs give extreme cause for concern for supporters of open societies, good governance and the accountability of governmental institutions.

21. European Commission funding to NGOs creates a closed echo chamber of NGOs where the truth is often swallowed by a common set of ideologies. The authors of the NGO Report (2016b, p. 1) argue that the “relationship between the European Union (EU) and civil society is marked by an unbalanced distribution of funding, favoring a small number of highly interconnected NGOs. The EU and NGOs rely on one another for information, creating a closed echo chamber, undisturbed by any external input or independent evaluation.” They also argue that “[t]he biggest beneficiary NGOs are highly interconnected – with overlapping memberships in multiple networks and shared board members.”

22. EU institutions and EU Member States do not ensure that the European Com- mission effectively monitors how EU taxpayer money is spent by NGO recipients, which sub-contractors are involved and whether EU policy objectives are actually met. Our findings indicate that the European Commission may have to reconsider the terms and policy objectives underlying NGO funding. In the light of deceptive (social) online media campaigns, including paid online ads against TTIP, the European Commission would be advised to stronger monitor how NGOs engage in shaping public opinion. The European Commission may have to provide access to public funds according to clearly defined rules on how to engage in communication activities and the provision of information in general. The European Commission should ensure that all NGOs undergo proper and comprehensive evaluation procedures – all along the project period whenever public funding by EU institutions is involved.

23. Negative discourse can have positive effects, but anti-TTIP groups selfishly and recklessly exploited the political power of going negative by targeting ill-informed citizens. It is a necessary condition for modern democracies to have a broad debate about all the laws and policies initiated and enforced at EU level, Member State level and sub-federal level. It is a sufficient condition, however, that the debate is also informed and shaped by trusted experts who are aware of the fact that the great miseries of today’s world, including those of the European Union, are not to be found in trade. Trade (and migration) are usual suspects in the search for causes of inequality, social isolation, social immobility, or the dysfunction of governmental institutions in general. But trade must not become the scapegoat for failed policies in education, the regulation of competition and market power abuse, redistribution and democratic representation.

24. TTIP has become a vital element of a number of political parties’ and NGOs’ political business models. TTIP was, from the very beginning, presented as an embodiment of fracking, genetically-modified organisms, ruthless multinational corporations and eroding labour standards. Germany’s, and other EU countries’, green and left-wing political parties (e.g., in Belgium and France) boldly bet on the political victories from exploiting citizens latent mistrust in domestic and, primarily, EU institutions. Affiliated civil society NGOs like attac as well as labour unions were literally revived by the dissemination of crisis and end of capitalism men- talities. Their narratives are, to the largest extent, simplistic, ideological and distant from empirical evidence. Contrary to empirical evidence, their messages reveal an elusive picture, namely that only blocking TTIP negotiations would contribute to the economic and social development of EU countries, let alone developing countries.

11 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

25. For political parties, businesses and citizens that are interested in a Transatlantic dialogue about high standards, good rules for fair competition and, not least, good rules for good society, it is time to begin to challenge anti-TTIP propaganda in Germany, Austria and other European countries. The friends of open and pluralist societies, as well as supporters of TTIP negotiations, should not blame ill-informed and often anxious protesters on the streets, but confront the protest campaigns’ “puppet masters”, i.e. protest groups’ campaign managers. Both political parties and civil society organisations must be held accountable for evoking (largely ill-informed and therefore vulnerable) citizens’ emotions by directly spreading myths or contributing to the disemination of myths and hate speech on the Internet and beyond.

12 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

1. INTRODUCTION

This study takes up the insights of two previous analyses of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and political parties campaigning against the negotiations of the Transatlantic Part- nership Agreement (TTIP) in Germany. Both analyses were conducted in 2015 and focussed on how public opinion was shaped by anti-TTIP campaign NGOs after the launch of TTIP negotiations in June 2013 (see Bauer 2015a; 2015b). Accordingly, the motivation of this study builds on three major findings. Firstly, although anti-TTIP groups in Germany pursue hetero- geneous interests, they share a common goal: unshakable despise for TTIP. Secondly, anti-TTIP campaign groups’ messages are based on powerful metaphors aimed at awaking and anchoring negative feelings about TTIP in Germany’s wider, generally ill-informed public. Thirdly, anti-TTIP groups dominated over 90 percent of (social) online media reporting in Germany. The tremendous impact of anti-TTIP groups in Germany (and Austria) cannot be denied: while a majority of European citizens support TTIP in general, aversion to TTIP negotiations (or just TTIP) is by far strongest in Germany and Austria.

The original motivation of this follow-up study was to investigate whether the dominance of anti-TTIP groups on the Internet (the online sphere) also prevails in local TTIP information events that took place across Germany (the offline sphere) over the period February 2015 to February 2016. Accordingly, the first part of this study is based on a unique and comprehensive dataset of 1,508 local TTIP events in Germany allowing us to identify and discuss key protagonists of the anti-TTIP scene in Germany.

It was revealed from this analysis that Germany’s declared anti-TTIP organisations are highly connected, causing us to look deeper into the organisations major “self-proclaimed” TTIP experts, and organisational motivations and objectives. Therefore, the second part of this analysis provides multiple insights about those groups and individuals that so far played a dominant role in setting up and orchestrating Germany’s and Europe’s anti-TTIP protest movement. We not only discuss repeatedly stated messages; we also focus on some of the major means of communication used to “manufacture” widespread discontent about TTIP. In addition, the second part of this study considers several further aspects directly or indirectly related to anti-TTIP campaigning in other European countries, e.g., German NGOs’ deliberate attempts to set up a European protest movement, the role of Russian government-controlled media in negative reporting about TTIP, and the EU Commission’s role in, perhaps unintended, indirect financing of a great number of Europe’s major anti-TTIP organisations with public money.

The report is structured as follows. Chapter 2 elaborates on multi-dimensional symptoms and causes of German citizens’ aversion to TTIP. Chapter 3 presents how public opinion about TTIP stands in Germany, Austria and other EU Member States. Chapter 4 provides an overview of repeatedly stated narratives and major means of communication used to “manufacture” widespread public discontent about TTIP in Germany. Our dataset, as well as methodological considerations, are presented in Chapter 5. Germany’s anti-TTIP NGO’s campaigning activities are discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 discusses the dominant role of German NGOs in Eu- rope’s anti-TTIP campaign scene. Chapter 8 critically examines how the European Commission nanced major European anti-TTIP protest campaign organisations. The role of Russian government-controlled media is shaping public opinion about TTIP in Europe is discussed in Chapter 9, and Chapter 10 concludes.

13 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

2. GERMANS’ AVERSION TO TTIP - WHY THE TTIP AGREEMENT IS SO DIFFERENT

“TTIP kills”, “Kill TTIP”, “TTIP Protest Picnic”, and “Tango Against TTIP”. In Germany, anti-TTIP lobbying groups’ protest activities present themselves in colourful, but unambiguous ways, united in an irremovable aversion to TTIP. Highly professionalised campaign groups spread abstruse messages about a modern trade agreement that aims to pave the way for well-regulated commerce between European and US firms and citizens. By provoking and stimulating negative emotions, anti-TTIP-negotiations groups managed to collect almost 1.6 million signatures of Germans (primarily via the means of online petitions) against TTIP when at the same time only 13,117 visits were registered at the European Commission’s German language website for TTIP documents and negotiation texts (for an overview see Figure 11 below).

In Germany, anti-TTIP protest groups are not only inventive; they are also resourceful. Based on generous public funding and private donations, political parties, political foundations, environmental groups as well as clerical and anti-globalisation organisations, maintain influential networks orchestrated and utilised by green and left-wing political parties searching for anti-establishment political profiles. At the same time, the protest scene’s major organisations vividly engage in the financing and training of activists in other Member States to contaminate a broader audience of European Union citizens.

A salient systematic characteristic of anti-TTIP campaign groups’ catch phrases is that they are based on myths, fear-mongering and creative guesswork. Thereby, their banners are eye-catch- ing. Nimble institutional structures, common ideological mind-sets and a strong affinity to modern online media allow super-connected groups and individuals to turbo-charge online and on-the-ground protest activities. Their activities are extremely influential in the way they anchor German-speaking citizens’ views about TTIP (Bauer 2015a; 2015b; 2015c). Accordingly, for Germany and Austria opinion polls draw an alarming picture.

A recent survey commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation reports that the European majority welcomes TTIP, but Germany and Austria are particularly sceptical. A major matter of concern is the dramatic drop in the fundamentally positive opinion of trade in Germany from 2014 to 2016 (Bertelsmann Foundation 2016). Recent survey data of infratest dimap suggest that some 70 percent of German citizens oppose TTIP, almost twice the average in other EU countries (infratest dimap 2016; Eurobarometer 2015). Similarly, data of Dalia Research’s “eu28” survey indicate that support for TTIP is lowest in Germany (and Austria, another German-speaking country) while aversion to TTIP is far less pronounced in all other EU countries (Dalia Research 2016). What is worrisome for supporters of open markets and trade liberalisation: the negative – protest campaign-evoked – sentiment towards TTIP already spilled over to other European countries such as France (Fabry 2015) and those that are known for their citizens’ general support of open markets and pluralist societies such as Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (van Ham 2016).

Many observers on both sides of the Atlantic attest German citizens’ pronounced levels of risk aversion, frequently paraphrased as “German Angst.” Others argue that many Germans show distinct levels of anti-Americanism, especially after the revelation of the US National Security Agency’s (NSA) spying affairs (e.g., Sparding 2014). In addition, as is argued by Kolev (2016), German citizens’ aversion to TTIP increases the less they trust in the European Union’s institutions. The data discussed by Kolev explain why the majority of TTIP critics are generally in favour of free trade. TTIP is, in the eyes of many, shaped behind closed doors, fuelling the perception that German interests are sold out in Brussels. Furthermore, in an article about “Germa- ny’s Strange Turn Against Trade,” Marcel Fratzscher (2016), a well-known rather leftist German economist who supports TTIP and investment protection, argues that Germany’s position as “Europe’s economic superstar” causes a general aversion to changing the status quo. Besides that, Fratzscher argues, TTIP aversion in Germany is rooted in a general surge of populist and nation-

14 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

alist political forces in the Western world while, in addition, opposition to TTIP can be attribut- ed to widely perceived inequality and perceptions related to wealth and income distribution.

In 2013, the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach (IfD Allensbach 2013) found that many Ger- mans show some affection, or even “love”, for a number of elements of government-planned economies, such as prices for goods set by governments. Opinion pollster Thomas Peterson (2015) argues that it would be wrong to assume that the advantages of market economies are recognised by large parts of the Germany society. Asked for their attitudes towards planned economies, 40 percent of German survey respondents associated government-planned economies with a sufficient supply of goods, 51 percent with security and 40 percent with social equality. On the other hand, market economies were associated with greed, ruthlessness and exploitation by 56 percent, 53 percent and 51 percent respectively (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1: WHAT GERMANS ASSOCIATE WITH MARKET AND GOVERNMENT- PLANNED ECONOMIES

40 Sufficient supply of goods 68

26 Prosperity 66

29 Greed 56

25 Ruthlessness 53

28 Exploitation 51

35 High Prices 49

19 Freedom 48

81 Bureaucracy 47

51 Security 31

40 Scarcity 23

43 Social Equality 12

40 Inefficiency 11

27 Humanity 10

Government-planned Economic System Market Economy

Source: IfD Allensbach (2013); Peterson (2015). November 2013 survey. Percentage of respondents. Underlying survey question: Which of the following terms do you associate with market economies/ government-organised economic systems? See association profile provided by IfD Allensbach (2010).

The reflections outlined above draw a realistic picture of causes and, primarily, symptoms of TTIP opposition in Germany. What they fail to elucidate, however, is the mind-penetrating force of those groups and individuals, including influential figureheads of well-established -po litical parties, that set up the anti-TTIP scene in Germany in the first place – and since try to expand it to other European countries.

15 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Most observers’ reflections also fail to draw the greater implications for the future “purpose” of the European Union, EU institutions’ credibility, and the zeitgeist of both protectionism and globalisation (e.g., Politico 2016a and van Ham 2016). Financial Times (2016) trade correspon- dent Shawn Donnan summarises that in “Europe, protesters are taking to the streets against the agreement, while populists on both the right and the left have it in their sights as an easy proxy for both suspicion of Brussels and a thinly-veiled anti-Americanism.” Related, Politico (2016b) reporter Hans von der Burchard comments that “protectionist winds are blowing stronger than in a long time on both sides of the Atlantic — the product, in part, of a coordinated campaign by a panoply of organisations sceptical of globalisation.”

Indeed, right before TTIP negotiations started in June 2013, only a few people realised that trade agreements concretely affect their lives on a daily basis, right down to the food they eat, the coffee they drink, the medicine they take, the cars they drive and services they consume. However, after three years of TTIP negotiations, even less Europeans seem to understand, care about or recognise the merits of liberalised trade, and the benefits of vivid competition for open and pluralist societies. Now, after three years of professionally-orchestrated anti-TTIP campaign work, every favourable word on TTIP is a trigger of sharp opposition. Importantly, in Germa- ny and some other European countries, defence of TTIP, competition and open markets has become almost politically toxic. Even friends of trade liberalisation and empowerment by trade are increasingly voicing scepticism of TTIP and calling for the trade agreement to be dropped.

3. WHAT DO GERMANS THINK ABOUT TTIP?

European citizens’ interest and views about free trade in general and TTIP in particular form the starting point of our analysis. Four major trends can be taken from data on public opinion:

1) According to Google Trends, global search interest for the term “TTIP” has increased steadily since the first round of TTIP negotiations took place in June 2013 (see Figure 2). Peaks of people’s search interest were triggered by traditional and online media coverage before and during negotiation rounds. Search peaks for October 2015 and May 2016 coincided with a TTIP protest day in Berlin and Greenpeace’s announcement of having leaked TTIP negotiation texts.

FIGURE 2: DEVELOPMENT OF SEARCH INTEREST FOR TTIP, MAY 2013 TO 120 JUNE 2016 Greenpeace 100 claims leak Anti-TTIP of TTIP 80 demonstration in documents Berlin, Germany 60 Negotiation rounds 40

interest for ‘TTIP’ for interest 20 Google global search

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 ------07 09 01 03 05 11 01 03 05 07 09 11 01 03 05 07 09 11 01 03 05 ------2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 12 Jan 2013 12 Jan 2014 12 Jan 2015 12 Jan 2016 12 Jan 12 July 2013 12 July 2014 12 July 2015 12 July 12 Mar 2013 12 Mar 2014 12 Mar 2015 12 Mar 2016 12 Mar 12 Nov 2013 12 Nov 2014 12 Nov 2015 12 Nov 12 Sept 2013 12 Sept 2014 12 Sept 2015 12 Sept 12 May 2013 12 May 2014 12 May 2015 12 May 2016 12 May

ECIPE analysis. Source: Google Trends. January 2013 to June 2016. Numbers do not convey absolute search volumes. Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point on the chart. If, for example, at most 10 per cent of searches for the given region and time frame were for “TTIP”, it is taken as 100.

16 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

2) For the period January 2013 to June 2016, region-size-adjusted Google Trends data show that citizens’ search interest for TTIP is by far strongest in Austria and Germany (Figure 3). This means that the concentration of Austrians and Germans for “TTIP” is much higher than the concentration of other Europeans (and US American citizens) searching for “TTIP”. It is striking that interest in TTIP is three times higher in Germany compared to Spain, 20 times higher compared to France and 40 times higher compared to Canada and the United States.

The remarkably outstanding position of Germany and Austria in citizens’ interest in TTIP is also reflected by the content and relative number of Google Search queries related to TTIP (Figure 4). 8 of the 20 top Google queries related to TTIP were entered in German language. Another 8 queries include generic terms that generally apply for German and other languages. 6 of the top 20 queries are biased towards a negative picture of TTIP. “TTIP demo”, where “demo” is a German acronym for protest demonstration, ranks first in TTIP-related queries while “Stop TTIP”, an initiative against TTIP that has its origin in Germany and is coordinated by German campaign groups, ranks fourth.

By comparison, only one of the top 20 queries is in Spanish language. It ranks rather low and, importantly, conveys a rather neutral sentiment (ttip que es). The same applies for queries entered in English language. Accordingly, the data do not indicate that Germans generally care much more about trade agreements and TTIP in particular. The interest in TTIP and the negative sentiment conveyed by Google queries is, as will be extensively discussed below, the consequence of professional campaign efforts of Green, Left-wing and anti-establishment political groups and individuals seeking to manufacture discontent about TTIP.

FIGURE 3: GOOGLE SEARCH INTEREST BY COUNTRY

Austria 100 Germany 80 Belgium 42 Spain 31 Netherlands 30 Finland 28 Ireland 21 United Kingdom 21 Italy 20 Czech Republic 20 Switzerland 18 Sweden 15 Norway 14 Denmark 14 Hungary 10 Greece 9 Poland 9 Portugal 9 France 5 Australia 2 United States 2 Canada 2

ECIPE analysis. Source: Google Trends. Numbers do not convey absolute search volumes. Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point on the chart. If, for example, at most 10 per cent of searches for the given region and time frame were for “TTIP”, it is taken as 100.

17 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 4: MOST POPULAR GOOGLE SEARCH QUERIES RELATED TO TTIP

TTIP demo [TTIP demonstration] 100 EU TTIP 95 TTIP trade 75 Stop TTIP 70 Was ist TTIP [what is TTIP] 65 CETA 65 TTIP CETA 65 TTIP wiki 55 TTIP Berlin 55 TTIP Freihandelsabkommen [TTIP free trade agreement] 50 Freihandelsabkommen [free trade agreement] 50 Gegen TTIP [against TTIP] 50 Petition TTIP 45 TPP TTIP 45 What is TTIP 40 Pro TTIP 35 TTIP que es [what is TTIP] 35 Nachteile TTIP [disadvantages of TTIP] 30 TTIP news 30 TTIP Abkommen [TTIP agreement] 30

3) Data of Dalia Research’s eu28 survey of March 2016 indicate that the majority of European citizens support TTIP. For the group of EU Member States excluding Germany and Austria, 64 percent of citizens are in favour of TTIP. On the other hand, only 48 percent of Germans and Austrians taken together support TTIP (Figure 5).

The data also show that EU citizens have a stronger aversion to a “TTIP between the EU and the US” than a “Free Trade Agreement between the EU and the US”. In December 2015, 73 percent of respondents were favorable to an “FTA”. In March 2016, when the same question was asked about TTIP, the support numbers fell to 61 percent (Figure 6). Germans show the highest rate of aversion and lowest support rates for TTIP respectively. However, the TTIP-FTA popularity discount is also pronounced for other major European countries (Figure 7), which is a direct consequence of a targeted key word campaigns against TTIP and targeted campaign activities spilling over to other European countries.

18 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 5: EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ FEELINGS ABOUT TTIP VERSUS GERMANY AND AUSTRIA

64%

52% 48%

36%

EU ex Austria ex Germany, Austria and Germany, positive EU ex Austria ex Germany, Austria and Germany, Positive Sentient Sentiment Negative Sentiment negative Sentient

ECIPE analysis. Source: Dalia Research. European-wide survey e28. Numbers presented refer to “How do you feel about the EU signing a free trade agreement (TTIP) with the US?” (March 2016 survey).

FIGURE 6: EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ FEELINGS ABOUT A “TRANSATLANTIC FTA” AND A “TTIP” BETWEEN THE EU AND THE US

"TTIP" between EU and US, 03/2016 Survey 13% 26% 51% 10%

"FTA" between EU and US, 12/2015 Survey 9% 18% 52% 21%

Very negative Somewhat negative Somewhat positive Very positive

ECIPE analysis. Source: Dalia Research. European-wide survey e28. Numbers presented refer to two questions: 1) “How do you feel about the EU signing a free trade agreement (FTA) with the US?” (De- cember 2015 survey) and 2) “How do you feel about the EU signing a free trade agreement (TTIP) with the US?” (March 2016 survey).

19 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 7: POPULARITY DISCOUNT ON “TTIP” VERSUS “TRANSATLANTIC FTA” IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

28% 26% 22% 20% 21% 20% 18% 16% 15% 14% 13% 12% 10% 10% 11% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 3%

Germany Spain France United Kingdom Italy Poland

FTA between EU & US: Very Negative, 12/2015 TTIP between EU & US: Very Negative, 03/2016 FTA between EU & US: Very Positive, 12/2015 TTIP between EU & US: Very Positive, 03/2016

4) In line with the EU’s latest publicly available Eurobarometer poll results, data of Dalia Research’s March 2016 wave indicate that aversion to TTIP is, by far, strongest in Germany. For those countries where a representative sample of the population was asked the question “How do you feel about the EU signing a free trade agreement (TTIP) with the US?,” 51 percent of Ger- mans were generally negative towards the trade agreement, compared to 43 percent in France, 41 percent in the United Kingdom, 33 percent in Spain and Italy, and 28 percent in Poland (Figure 7).

FIGURE 8: EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ SENTIMENT TOWARDS TTIP

Germany 49% 51%

France 57% 43%

United Kingdom 59% 41%

Spain 67% 33%

Italy 67% 33%

Poland 72% 28%

Generally positive Generally negative

ECIPE analysis. Source: Dalia Research. European-wide survey e28TM. Numbers presented refer to the following question: “How do you feel about the EU signing a free trade agreement (TTIP) with the US?” (March 2016 survey). Number of surveyed citizens: Germany = 1,420, France = 1,248, United Kingdom = 1,199, Spain = 1,005, Italy = 1,138, Poland = 860.

20 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

For the overall sample of EU Member States, there is a distinct correlation between aversion to TTIP and youth (and general) unemployment and aversion to TTIP (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Obviously, EU citizens of those countries that show high unemployment rates and relatively low levels of the state of economic development are either less interested (and therefore less prone and affected) by anti-TTIP campaigning or they consider TTIP a welcome vehicle to create new opportunities. The numbers support the argument of Fratzscher (2015) and others that German (and Austrian) citizens show a tendency to reject policies which they perceive to change a liveable status quo.

On the other hand, the data indicate that those Europeans that are economically less well-off show much greater support for TTIP (e.g., Poland and the Baltic states) and are exposed to the threat of being deprived of new economic opportunities by forceful anti-TTIP and anti-free trade campaign initiatives. For Eastern-European citizens in particular, preferences to deepening economic and political relations with Western European countries and the United States may add to citizens’ favour of TTIP.

In addition, as outlined by Dreyer (2015), opinion polls reveal that aversion to TTIP is related to the proportion of elderly people in the overall population of a country. For Germany (median age 46.1), Italy (44.5), Austria (44.3), Greece (43.5) and Slovenia (43.5), public opinion polls reveal that the majority in three of these five countries hold rather unfavourable views about TTIP. For Germany, Eurobarometer (2015) poll results reveal that 65 percent of 30-39 year- olds believe TTIP would be “good for Germany”, while only 34 percent of those aged 60 years or more shared that view. Accordingly, TTIP failure would reflect the preferences of Germany’s ageing median voter. In other words, TTIP failure would primarily meet the preferences of those that are retired, economically inactive, adverse to change, entitled to pension plans, and thus already relatively rich and less exposed to adverse business cycle variations. In addition, as will be shown and discussed below, anti-TTIP campaigners are by a great margin most active in Germany’s most economically-sated federal states: Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia). At the same time, they are less active in the states of former East Germany, where the average state of economic development is still lagging behind.

FIGURE 9: TTIP SUPPORT AND YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE EU

70% Austria

60%

Germany Luxembourg Slovakia 50% Malta Slovenia Belgium Czech Republic Cyprus United Kingdom Latvia France 40% Finland Netherlands Hungary Croatia Greece Sweden Bulgaria Ireland Italy Spain 30% LithuaniaPoland Member State Denmark Portugal 20% Estonia Romania

10% Aversion toin TTIPcentrespondents per of by EU 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Youth Unemployment Rate in per cent

ECIPE analysis. Source: Dalia Research and Eurostat. European-wide survey e28. Numbers presented refer to the following question: ‘How do you feel about the EU signing a free trade agreement (TTIP) with the US?’ (March 2016 survey).

21 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 10: TTIP SUPPORT AND STATE OF INTRA-EU ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

70% Austria

60%

Slovakia Luxembourg 50% Malta Germany Cyprus Belgium Czech Republic Latvia Slovenia France 40% Croatia United Kingdom Finland Netherlands HungaryGreece Bulgaria Italy Sweden LithuaniaSpain Ireland 30% Poland Denmark Member State Portugal 20% Romania Estonia

10%

Aversion toin TTIPcentrespondents per of by EU 0% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 GDP per Capita expressed in relation to the European Union (EU28) average set to equal 100

ECIPE analysis. Source: Dalia Research and Eurostat. European-wide survey e28. Numbers presented refer to the following question: “How do you feel about the EU signing a free trade agreement (TTIP) with the US?” (March 2016 survey). GDP per capita is expressed as percentage of the EU28 average set equal to 100.

To sum it up: the survey data presented above show that the majority of European citizens support a trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the United States. At the same time, the data indicate that a “TTIP between the EU and the US” is seen far less favourable than an “FTA between the EU and the US,” i.e. it is the four letters already anchored in peoples’ minds and how these letters were framed that account for the difference in perception. At the same time, polling data draw the most adverse picture for TTIP opinion in Austria and Germany, where unprecedented campaigns against TTIP were run by a well-connected, well-financed group of organisations and individuals since TTIP negotiations were launched in June 2013. Given that open markets for trade and investment are crucial for the success of Germany’s current economic landscape, it goes without saying that the anti-TTIP scene in Germany is vital in understanding such paradoxical patterns in public opinion. The huge gap in interest in TTIP between German and French citizens and German and US citizens can hardly be explained by cultural attitudes embedded in peoples “national mind-sets.” These findings strongly indicate that other forces are at work.

22 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

4. ANTI-TTIP NGOs EXPLOITING SLACKTIVISM: MESSAGES AND INFORMATION SPREAD ABOUT TTIP IN GERMANY (AND AUSTRIA)

Irrespective of innumerable clarifications made by leading German and European politicians and the European Commission, it is particularly worrisome that Germany’s major anti-TTIP groups did not distance themselves from their original reasoning with respect to core critical issues addressed. Accordingly, Germany’s (and Austria’s) leading anti-TTIP groups to this date proliferate messages that evoke wide-spread fears about TTIP and CETA. Key narratives are: “TTIP encourages the proliferation of genetically-modified organisms in the EU”, “TTIP and CETA are an attack on democracy”, “TTIP allows the United States to veto on and eventually block EU law-making”, and “TTIP allows multinational corporations to sue EU governments for enforcing laws on consumer, health, and environmental safety”. It is crucial to understand, however, that all of these claims fail to pass the validity check. By doing so, as is argued by Po- litico (2016b), TTIP “elevated [German NGOs] to positions of unprecedented influence. Their coffers have swollen with funds, enabling them to boost their staff and their political profile.” For an overview of major narratives developed for political campaigning see Table 1. For a validity check of claims voiced by major anti-TTIP organisations, see Table 2.

In the past, Germans were not more interested in the negotiations of (free) trade agreements per se. However, the metaphoric messages spread by Germany’s major anti-TTIP groups triggered widespread, far-above EU average, interest in Germany.

The (social) online media played a critical role. As Bauer (2015a) shows for the period June 2014 to December 2014, negative online media reporting about TTIP in Germany was more than 20 times higher than positive reporting. Declared anti-TTIP groups dominated the online media debate by far. In the period July to December 2014, anti-TTIP groups’ announcements in Ger- many amounted to 83 percent of total online media reporting on average, rising to 93 percent at peak times. Peak-time media reporting took place around the TTIP negotiation rounds. 85 percent of the total number of TTIP-related posting were originally authored and spread by anti-TTIP groups. Declared anti-TTIP groups’ messages were primarily spread through social online media. Almost 80 percent of anti-TTIP groups’ positions are spread via Twitter, while 20 per cent of their posts spread through Facebook.

Even more, from the very beginning of TTIP negotiations, Germany’s anti-TTIP groups rein- forced their own newsletters and negative social media reporting about TTIP by the targeted placements of sponsored advertisements on search machines like Google or Yahoo. Early-stage advertisements were, for example, placed by “TTIPunfairhandelbar”, Germany’s major campaign against TTIP that is coordinated by the Berlin-based Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung. Others were placed by Campact, Greenpeace Germany and foodwatch Germany.

The promoted advertisements’ impact was twofold: not only did they convey negative emotions about TTIP by the use of emotionally-appealing titles; they also directed persons interested in background information on TTIP straight to the campaign groups’ TTIP information pages. As a consequence, even those citizens (interested and probably unbiased pupils, students, employees, entrepreneurs etc.) who searched for facts and balanced perspectives about the agreement hardly found it by the use of major search engines.

23 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

TABLE 1: NARRATIVES AND PHASES SPREAD ON TTIP BY GERMANY’S MOST ACTIVE ANTI-TTIP ORGANISATIONS

Claim Spread by BUND (German Campact Federation for (funded Foodwatch Greenpeace attac Germany1 the Environment by attac Germany3 Germany4 and Nature members)2 Conservation)5 TTIP allows for the proliferation yes yes yes yes yes of GMO’s in the EU TTIP is an attack on democracy yes yes yes yes yes and the right to regulate TTIP allows the United states and/or yes yes yes yes yes multinational corporations to block EU Laws TTIP allows multinational corporations to sue EU governments for yes yes yes yes yes enforcing laws on consumer safety, health, and environmental safety Political catch “Freihandelsfalle “Stoppt TTIP” “Ein Angriff auf “TTIP und CETA “TTIP Stoppen” – phrases TTIP” – TTIP is a free – “Stop TTIP”; Demokratie Stoppen” – Stop “Stop TTIP”; “Stop trade trap”; “Konzerne “Konzernen und Verbrau- TTIP and CETA; CETA und TTIP”; machen Staaten den noch mehr cherrechte” “Böse Saat” – “Evil TTIP, nicht mit uns” Prozess” – Multina- Macht geben” – An attack Seeds”; “CETA ist – TTIP – We we tional enterprises rule – TTIP gives on democracy brandgefährlich” – will never agree”; over governments”; additional power and consumer “CETA is extremely Kommunale Daseins- “Technokraten ent- to multinational rights” dangerous” vorsorge unter Lib- machten Parlamente” corportions; eralisierungsdruck” – – “Technocrats de- “TTIP beschnei- Public Services under prive governments of det die Men- pressure to privatise”; power” schenrechte” “Wir werden CETA – “TTIP cuts Stoppen” – We will human rights” stop CETA”

Source: ECIPE analysis. For major anti-TTIP groups in Germany see also Bauer (2015a, 2015b and 2016). For references on information spread by individual groups, see footnotes.

1 See information provided by attac Germany, http://www.attac.de/kampagnen/freihandelsfalle-ttip/hintergrund/, http://www.attac.de/kampagnen/freihandelsfalle-ttip/hintergrund/was-ist-regulatorische-kooperation/ and http:// www.attac.de/kampagnen/freihandelsfalle-ttip/freihandelsfalle-ttip/, accessed on 15 September 2015. 2 See information provided by Campact e.V., “5 minute info on TTIP“, https://www.campact.de/ttip/appell/5-minuten-info/ and https://blog.campact.de/2015/02/diese-150-sekunden-haben-es-in-sich-video-enthuellt-neuen- ttip-skandal/ accessed on 15 September 2016. 3 See information provided by foodwatch Germany, https://www.foodwatch.org/de/informieren/freihandelsabkommen/2-minuten-info/, https://www.foodwatch.org/de/informieren/freihandelsabkommen/mehr-zum-thema/private-schiedsgerichte/ and https://www.foodwatch.org/de/informieren/freihandelsabkommen/mehr-zum- thema/ttip-ceta-tisa/, accessed on 15 September 2016.

24 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

In September 2016, for example, sponsored Google ads of Germany’s green political party DIE GRUENEN and civil society organisations foodwatch, publik forum (an organisation rooted in Christian religious belief), BUND (German Federation for the Environment and Nature Con- servation, Friends of the Earth) and Greenpeace Germany ranked first in plain vanilla searches for TTIP – labelled “The Green Position on TTIP”, “Stop TTIP Now”, “The War on TTIP”, and “Stop CETA and TTIP” (Table 3). Likewise, several heavily promoted online petitions, such as anti-TTIP groups call on email newsletter subscribers to contribute to the European Commission’s online consultation on investment protection conducted in 2015 (by completing forms made available to potential signatories) contributed to spreading dubious claims rather than fact-based, balanced information (see, e.g., Bauer 2015c and European Commission 2015).

TABLE 2: VALIDITY CHECK OF CLAIMS SPREAD BY GERMANY’S ANTI-TTIP GROUPS

Claim Clarification be EU Commission6 CETA7,8 TTIP/CETA al- No. The EU has a strict system for deciding whether to allow com- No. CETA does not affect EU restrictions lows for the panies to sell any given GMO in the EU. This is entirely separate on beef containing growth hormones proliferation of from trade negotiations. The EU basic law on GMOs - including the or GMOs. See CETA text and European GMO’s in the EU. European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) safety assessment and Commission summary clarification. the risk management procedure - is not up for negotiation. It will not change as a result of TTIP. TTIP/CETA is an No. 1) On investment protection and ISDS: TTIP does not stop gov- No. See CETA text. The right to regulate is attack on democ- ernments passing laws, but where new laws discriminate against explicitly guaranteed in investment protec- racy and the right foreign firms it allows them to bring a claim for compensation. 2) tion chapter, trade and labour chapter and to regulate. On regulatory cooperation: TTIP will not overrule, repeal or amend trade and environment chapter. EU legislation. The EU's 28 member countries and the European Parliament would have to approve any changes to EU laws or regulations in order to liberalise trade. TTIP/CETA al- No. TTIP aims to encourage discussion about regulations. Although No. Under CETA, the EU and Canada have lows the United EU and US regulations are often very similar they sometimes agreed to set up a Regulatory Coopera- states and/or achieve their aims in different ways. TTIP aims to encourage EU tion Forum. The Forum will function as a multinational cor- and US regulators to work more closely when setting new regula- voluntary cooperation mechanism to ex- porations to block tions, and to recognise each other's regulations where they provide change experiences and relevant informa- EU Laws. equivalent protection. tion among regulators, and to help identify areas where regulators could cooperate. It will not be able to change existing regulations or develop new legislation. TTIP/CETA al- No. EU laws set high standards that protect, among others: human No. See CETA text. The right to regulate is lows multination- life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and con- explicitly guaranteed in investment protec- al corporations sumers. In the EU, independent regulators advise governments on tion chapter, trade and labour chapter and to sue EU gov- how strict these standards should be, based on the latest scientific trade and environment chapter. ernments for en- research. TTIP will safeguard these standards, and a government’s forcing laws on right to set them as high as they wish in the future. consumer safety, health, and environmental safety.

Source: ECIPE analysis. For major anti-TTIP groups in Germany see also Bauer (2015a, 2015b and 2016). For references on information spread by individual groups, see footnotes.

4 See information provided by Greenpeace Germany, https://www.greenpeace.de/ttip-stoppen and https://www. greenpeace.de/themen/landwirtschaft/gentechnik/boese-saat, accessed on 15 September 2016. 5 See information provided by BUND Germany, http://www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundnet/pdfs/umweltschutz_in- ternational/150710_bund_umweltschutz_international_ttip_kommunen.pdf and http://www.bund.net/themen_ und_projekte/internationaler_umweltschutz/ttip_ceta/, accessed on 14 September 2016. 6 See information provided by the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-t- tip/questions-and-answers/index_en.htm, accessed on 15 September 2016. 7 See text provided by European Commission, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tra- doc_152806.pdf, accessed on 15 September 2016.

25 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

TABLE 3: DECLARED ANTI-TTIP GROUPS SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENTS ON GOOGLE’S SEARCH ENGINE

Ungefähr 14.200.000 Ergebnisse (0,20 Sekunden)

Jetzt TTIP verhindern - Wir informieren Sie - publik-forum.de abo.publik-forum.de/ Kostenloses Dossier & Publik-Forum. Jetzt zwei Hefte kostenlos lesen.

Was ist und will TTIP? - Die Grüne Position zu TTIP, CETA www.gruene-bundestag.de/TTIP Nur fairer Handel ist freier Handel

Was steckt hinter TTIP - foodwatch.org www.foodwatch.org/ceta-und-ttip Mehr auf foodwatch.de zu den Vor- und Nachteilen von TTIP- und CETA Mehr zu TTIP und CETA . foodwatch unterstützen . Online-Aktionen . Newsletter bestellen

CETA & TTIP stoppen - für einen gerechten Welthandel - bund.net aktion.bund.net/ceta-verhindern Hilf mit deiner Stimme CETA un TTIP zu stoppen.

Source: ECIPE analysis. Author’s queries on Google search engine on 14 September 2016. First query made on 12:36, second query on 12:56. Note that TTIP information was exclusively advertised by declared anti-TTIP groups. Advertised messages: “What does TTIP want?”, “Who is behind TTIP?”, “TTIP? CETA? Referendum – Sign call against TTIP”, “Fight against TTIP – Environmental Pro- tection since 1971”, “Stop TTIP now!”, “Stop CETA and TTIP”.

As a consequence, Germany’s most active anti-TTIP groups successfully managed to manufacture widespread discontent about TTIP. They dominated (and still dominate) the public information space about TTIP. In Germany, TTIP information spread by sources other than declared anti-TTIP organisations were, and still are, hard to find on the Internet, which is for most people the most primary source of policy-specific background information and political education in general. The same applies for journalists and media representatives. Accordingly, official information about TTIP negotiations, including negotiations texts published by the Eu- ropean Commission were evidently not taken into consideration by those citizens that signed the “self-organised European Citizens Initiative” (ECI, for a broader discussion see below) against TTIP. The prerogative on interpretation of “what TTIP is about” was, and still is, with declared anti-TTIP organisations (Figure 11).

8 See summary information provided by the European Commisison, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ ceta/questions-and-answers/index_de.htm, accessed on 15 September 2016.

26 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 11: NUMBER OF VISITS TO EU COMMISSION’S OFFICIAL TTIP NEGOTIATION TEXTS’ WEBSITE VERSUS NUMBER OF SIGNATURES COLLECTED BY “STOP TTIP” CAMPAIGN ORGANISATIONS

1,577,042

501,819 360,227 90,868 30,882 10,425 117,381 4,451 62,317 13,117 3,961 1,060

Germany France Spain United Kingdom

Visits of EU Commission negotiation texts website in country-specific language, 29 April 2015 - 6 October 2015

Visits of EU Commission negotiation texts website in country-specific language, 29 April 2015 - 29 April 2016

Signatures for ECI against TTIP (closing date: 6 October 2015)

Source: EU Commission, DG Trade, and Stop TTIP (www.stop-ttip.org). Note that visits of the EU Commission’s English language webpage do not directly correspond with visits paid by English-speaking citizens of the United Kingdom. A discussion of the “self-organised” European Citizens Initiative in given below. 6 October 2015 marks the closing date of the ECI against TTIP. We provide numbers for a second period (13 months) in order to give the reader an impression about how national citizens interest in TTIP-related information provided by the EU Commission evolved over time.

5. DATASET AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The analyses conducted in Chapters 4 and 5 are based on a unique set of data collected by the authors. The methodology applied in data mining is described below.

5.1. THE DATASET

The data have been collected via online research from publicly available sources including search engines and search purpose related websites. The search queries concerned announcements of public events organised by various groups and individuals to discuss and inform about the “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement” between the European Union and the United States of America and its commonly recognised abbreviation “TTIP.” The dataset, therefore, includes mainly events about TTIP, but it also includes events which address frequently criticised trade and investment agreements such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the European Union and Canada (CETA) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA).

The time period of the analysis comprises one full year and covers events that took place between February 2015 and February 2016. The focus of the data collection is on events which took place in Germany (1,508 events, for an overview see Annex II). In addition, a number of public events that took place in other European countries were collected, i.e., Austria (112), Belgium (101),

27 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

France (18), the Netherlands (6), and the United Kingdom (32).9 Due to low numbers of registered TTIP events, event data for Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are only taken into consideration for the qualitative analyses provided below.

The information included for each of the events comprised the following details as far as these were available:

1. title of the event, 2. place where it took place, 3. date and time when it took place, 4. institution organising the event (event owner), 5. names of the speakers and the institutions they represented as well as 6. title of their speeches if available.

5.2. CODING OF EVENT DATA

The information available for each event was coded according to three categories of information: (1) the event title, (2) the event organiser, and (3) speakers. In order to conduct a comprehensive and consistent analysis of the data, we defined a set of criteria which is described in the following paragraphs.

For each of our sub-categories more than one criterion can apply. In order to account for inter-coder reliability (to avoid biased/subjective individual assessment), the coding was carried out by two different researchers. Accordingly, categories and criteria were only coded when they were chosen by both researchers independently. Differences in individual coding were discussed at a second stage and aligned based on consensus.

(1) Event Title

Regarding the event title, three different criteria were coded: first, the subject matter addressed in the title was coded according to the following set of issues (multiple selections may apply):

1: Investor-State-Dispute Settlement (ISDS) 2: Transparency 3: State & Democracy 4: Consumer & Health Protection 5: Environmental Protection 6: Public Services 7: Culture (i.e. issues related to arts etc.) 8: Private Sector 8: Multi-National-Corporations (MNC) 9: Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) 10: Regulatory Cooperation 11: Fair Trade 12: Alternative Mandate 13: Trade and Economic Growth

9 “Flagship TTIP action days”, e.g. the “Tag der Kultur” (Day of Culture) on 18. May 2015, with a host of events across germany were taken as only one event under one heading. Information stands in pedestrian areas or church conventions have not been captured. However, such events were supposed to generate greater local publicity to reach a broader specturm of society. Internal events such as regular meetings of anti-TTIP campaigners, which are occasionally open to interested people were not considered as information events in the context of the study. Therefore, this study may in paticular underestimate the local presence of declared anti-TTIP organisations and their representatives.

28 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

14: Jobs and Employment 15: Competition 16: Innovation 17: Investment 18: Communal or Regional Impact (i.e. impacts on a specific region, federal state, commune, etc.) 19: Sector-specific impact (if the event title alluded to impacts on a specific economic sector, e.g. agriculture) 20: Values 21: Other/Non-specific (if there was no specific subject matter alluded to, or a subject matter not listed)

Second, it was coded which trade agreement was addressed in the event title. The criteria applied are: “TTIP”, “CETA”, “TiSA” or “other”.

Third, it was coded which sentiment was conveyed through event header, i.e., if the formulation and words used indicated a positive, negative or neutral position regarding the subject matter. For example, formulations alluding only to the “danger” or “risks” of a trade agreement were coded as indicating a negative attitude, whereas formulations alluding to the “risks and benefits” were coded as conveying a neutral sentiment, while suggesting a balanced discussion of the subject matter. Event titles containing the German word “Folgen” (i.e. consequences) were coded as indicating a negative attitude as it is perceived to have a negative connotation, while titles using the German word “Auswirkungen” (impacts) were coded as indicating a neutral sentiment as it carries a rather neutral connotation. Event titles containing the words “benefits” or “potentials” were coded as conveying a positive sentiment.

(2) Event Organiser

Regarding the second category, it was coded which kind of institution organised the event. For each event up to three organisers were coded in case there were more than one organisers. The following criteria apply, whereby multiple coding may apply (e.g. for category 11 and categories 6, 10 and 11):

1: Civil Society, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) 2: Political Party 3: Political Foundation 4: Individual Corporation 5: Business Federation 6: Labour Union 7: Academia/University (this included, above al,l universities and research institutes associated with a university or carrying out academic research, but also student organisations associated to a university) 8: EU, Federal or Sub-Federal Ministry or Public Institution 9: Anti-TTIP Campaign Group Member Organisation10 10: Consumer Protection Organisation 11: Environmental Protection Organisation 12: Media (e.g. journalists) 13: Educational Institutions (i.e. non-academic institutions such as training centres or adult education centres)

10 These include institutions or organisations listed in one of the following sources: members of the organisation “TTIP unfairhandelbar” [TTIP non-negotiable]: http://www.ttip-unfairhandelbar.de/start/wer-wir-sind/mitgliederliste/, network of the anti-TTIP manifestations in Germany: http://ttip-demo.de/home/netzwerk/, members of the alliance “Stop TTIP”: https://stop-ttip.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ECI-Partner-List_16_05_30.pdf.

29 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

14: Religious Institution (i.e. organisations associated with the church or the church itself) 15: Other

(3) Panelists

In the third category, the panellists (speakers; experts) as well as their institutional background were coded. For each event up to five speakers were coded. The coding is based on the following criteria, whereby multiple coding may apply (e.g. for category 11 and categories 6, 10 and 11):

1: Civil society (if the speaker was representing e.g. an NGO or another form of organised civil society group) 2: Political party 3: Political Foundation 4: Individual corporation 5: Business federation 6: Labour union 8: Federal or sub-federal ministry or public institutions 9: European governmental body or public institution (i.e. mainly the European Parliament and European Commission) 10: Foreign governmental body or public institutions (e.g. the US Chamber of Commerce) 11: Anti-TTIP campaign group member organisation 12: Consumer protection organisation 13: Environmental protection organisation 14: Media/Journalist 15: Academia (for specification see explanation in previous category) 16: Educational Institution (for specification see explanation in previous category) 17: Religious Background (for specification see explanation in previous category) 18: Other

6. (ANTI-) TTIP CAMPAIGN WORK IN GERMANY

Germany has emerged to the EU’s major “pro-TTIP versus anti-TTIP” political battlefield, and German campaign groups are at the origin of the European movement against TTIP. In this Chapter, we conduct an event analysis to study and discuss major institutional and individual players, as well as interests and messages spread in the debate over TTIP in Germany.

6.1. HOSTS AND ORGANISERS OF TTIP EVENTS IN GERMANY

Like all previous trade and investment agreements that were concluded by the EU and its Mem- ber States, TTIP’s prime concern is to break down discriminatory and unnecessary barriers for businesses engaging in cross-the-border trade and investment. Accordingly, TTIP can be as- sumed to be in the interest of those German firms that already engage, or are considering engaging in the US marketplace. Accordingly, TTIP should also be in the interest of the business associations representing the interests of those firms. TTIP, like any other EU trade agreement, also bears a political dimension, i.e. to strengthen or even cement EU-US political cooperation. Hence, the agreement should find strong support of those political parties in Germany that support transatlantic political relations. In addition, since the German government is one of the 28 signatories of the mandate that formally enables the European Commission to negotiate TTIP with its counterpart, the United States Trade Representative, the German coalition government should generally back and support TTIP negotiations. Note that Germany’s current coalition

30 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

government is comprised of three political parties: the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU) and the Social Democratic Party of Ger- many (SPD).

A bird’s eye view on those institutions that organised TTIP-related events in Germany reveals a considerable asymmetry in the institutional background of hosts and organisers of TTIP information events (see Figure 12). On the one hand, individual businesses and business associations represent a tiny fraction of TTIP event organisers in Germany. Collectively, only 12 percent of TTIP event organisers in Germany are business associations and individual businesses respectively. By comparison, those political parties that have not declared membership to a formal anti-TTIP campaign group network account for 30 percent of TTIP events organised in Germa- ny. The majority of TTIP event organisers (58 percent of all registered events) are associations, organisations and political parties that initially set up or declared membership to formal anti-TTIP campaign group networks in Germany (i.e., “TTIPunfairhandelbar” and “Stop TTIP”, see Section 3 for clarification). These networks include four well-established political parties in Germany: Buendnis 90/GRUENE (the Alliance ‘90/The Greens), DIE LINKE (The Left), Die Piraten (The Pirates Germany) and the Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei (ÖDP, Ecological Democratic Party).11

The overall picture already indicates that, contrary to the reasoning outlined above, businesses and business associations, as well as those political parties that constitute the German government, show a relatively weak motivation to engage and shape the debate compared to the activities of the anti-TTIP movement. Declared anti-TTIP campaign group member organisations show a significantly higher activity in organising events to inform and shape the debate about TTIP, and, as will be discussed below, to set the agenda on subjects related to TTIP.

Moreover, although Germany’s Social Democrat government coalition party, whose party leader Sigmar Gabriel serves as Minister of Economic Affairs, has not officially declared formal affiliation to anti-TTIP protest networks in Germany, SPD politicians across all spectrums of political conviction (the “Parlamentarian Left” group in particular) frequently express ambiguous aversion to TTIP and sympathy to the protest groups’ activities.12 Accordingly, if the total of 208 events organised by the SPD, which is more than twice the number of events organised by Germany’s CDU, were ascribed to the group of TTIP protest organisations, the anti-TTIP scene controlled more than 75 percent of the local debate in Germany in the period under study.

11 Germany’s political party “Alternative für Deutschland” (AfD, Alternative for Germany) is not a declared member of an official anti-TTIP campaign groups, but officially rejects TTIP. We therefore included this part to the group of anti-TTIP groups. Since the AfD accounts for 6 registered events only, the results do not affect the overall pattern in the data. 12 In addition to the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy, which is led by SPD’s Sigmar Gabriel, there are three more SPD-led ministries at German federal government level that have a stake in TTIP: the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (which has directly provided generous public funding for the coordination office of anti-TTIP campaign network “TTIPunfairhandelbar”; DNR 2013, pp. 20), the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection.

31 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 12: DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR GROUPS OF STAKEHOLDERS ORGANISING ON TTIP

Individual Businesses 1% Business Federations 11%

Political Party w/o Anti-TTIP Member of Anti- Campaign Group TTIP Campaign Members Group 30% 58%

Source: ECIPE analysis. The sub-group “Member of Anti-TTIP Campaign Group” includes thoses political parties that formally declared support of anti-TTIP campaigns.

Compared to both anti-TTIP groups and political parties, German business associations have generally been much less active in organising TTIP-related events. As outlined by Figure 13, regional Chambers of Commerce (39 events) have been the most active business associations in organising TTIP-related events, followed by business groups and associatons affiliated to the CDU (22 events, e.g. CDU-Mittelstandsvereinigung; CDU Association of SMEs), and local Chambers of Crafts (11). In addition, the Association of Bavarian Industry was among the most active business federations owing to the strong anti-TTIP protest scene in the federal state of Bavaria, which is spearheaded by highly vocal farmers’ associations and environmental groups. The Association of Germany Industry (BDI), its member organisations as well as German associations of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) have been significantly less active in either hosting or organising TTIP-related events.

A similar picture emerges for individual businesses in Germany (see Figure 14). Based on a sample of 1,508 TTIP-related events, just 0.53 percent of all TTIP events in Germany were hosted or organised by individual firms. A mere total of 7 individual firms and 8 TTIP events organised by these firms are registered for the period under study.

32 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 13: TOP 20 BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS ORGANISING TTIP EVENTS IN GERMANY, BY NUMBER OF HOSTED EVENTS

IHK/DIHK (Association of German Chambers of Industry and IHK/ DIHK (Association of German Chambers of Industry and 39 Commerce) Commerce) CDU Mittelstandvereinigung/CDU Mittelstandvereinigung/Wirtschaftsrat (CDU Business Wirtschaftsrat (CDU Business Circles) Circles) 22

HandwerkskammernHandwerkskammern (Chamber of (Chamber of Crafts) Crafts) 11

Verband der Bayrischen Wirtschaft vbw Association of Bavarian Verband der Bayrischen Wirtschaft vbw (Association of Bavarian 8 Industry) Industry)

AmericanAmerican Chamber Germany Chamber Germany 6

Bundesverband derBundesverband Deutschen der Deutschen Industrie (BDI, Association of Industrie (BDI, Association of German Industry)German Industry) 3 Zentralverband Elekrotechnik-Zentralverband Elektrotechnik und Elektronikindustrie- und Elektronikindustrie (Central (Central Association of the ElectricalAssociation of the Electrical Engineering and Electronics Engineering andElectronics Industry)… 2

Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter (Association of Dairy Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter (AssociationFarmers) of Dairy Farmers) 2 Verband der ChemischenVerband der Chemischen Industrie (VCI, Industrie (VCI, Association of Chemical Association of Chemical Industry) Industry) 2 SPDSPD Mittelstandsvereinigung/Arbeitskreis Juristen (SPD Business Mittelstandsvereinigung/ Arbeitskreis Juristen Circles)(SPD Business Circles) 2

Verein demokratischer Pharmazeutinnen und Pharmazeuten Verein demokratischer Pharmazeutinnen und Pharmazeuten 1 (Association of Pharmacists)(Association of Pharmacists) UnternehmerVerbandUnternehmerVerband (Association of (Association of North Rhine-Westphalian North Rhine-Westphalian Businesses) Businesses) 1 Verband VerbandVerband für Medien für Medien-- und Veranstaltungstechnik (Association of und Veranstaltungstechnik (AssociationMedia Businesses) of Media Businesses) 1

KreisbauernverbandKreisbauernverband Reutlingen (Association of Farmers) Reutlingen (Association of Farmers) 1

German AmericanGerman American Business Business Council Council 1

US ChamberUS Chamber of of Commerce Commerce 1

Walter Raymond Stiftung (BDA, Umbrella Org. of Germany Walter Raymond Stiftung (BDA, Umbrella org.Employers) of Germany Employers) 1

SPECTARIS (HighSPECTARIS (High Tech Industry Association) Tech Industry Association) 1

EinzelhandelsverbandEinzelhandelsverband Nord (Association of Retail Businesses) Nord (Association of Retail Businesses) 1

BundesverbandBundesverband Mittelständische Mittelständische Wirtschaft (BVMW, Wirtschaft (BVMW,Association of SMEs) Association of SMEs) 1 Source: ECIPE analysis.

FIGURE 14: NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES ORGANISING TTIP EVENTS IN GERMANY, NUMBER OF HOSTED EVENTS

Büsing, Müffelmann & Theye 1

Commerzbank AG 1

Lanxess Deutschland GmbH 2

Daimler AG 1

Feri EuroRating Services AG 1

Deutsche Messe AG 1

Deutsche Börse AG 1

Source: ECIPE analysis.

33 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Figure 15 depicts the 30 most active anti-TTIP campaign network organisations (for an overview of institutional backgrounds see Annex I). In the period under study, declared anti-TTIP protest groups hosted or organised 683 events (58 percent of all registered events) in Germa- ny. Accordingly, the number of TTIP events organised by member organisations of official anti-TTIP campaign networks exceeded those of business associations by 400 percent and those of political parties that are not affiliated with the protest networks by 90 percent. If the Social Democrat political party (SPD) were taken as an anti-TTIP organisation, the number of events of anti-TTIP groups would amount to 891 events and exceed those of business associations by 560 percent and those of non-affiliated political parties by 500 percent.

Local anti-TTIP alliances primarily understand and promote themselves as region- or city-specific coalitions against TTIP. Therefore, these groups’ events were coded as “local anti-TTIP groups”. The data illustrate that events hosted by local anti-TTIP groups, including events labelled and organised by “Stop TTIP” and “TTIPunfairhandelbar”, account for the largest number of anti-TTIP events in Germany (138 events) for the period under study. It should be noted, however, that local anti-TTIP alliances’ events were frequently planned, set up and promoted by major, i.e. most active and most vocal, anti-TTIP organisations in Germany, such as “attac Germany”, “Mehr Demokratie” as well as the political parties “GRUENE” and “DIE LINKE” (e.g. “Stop TTIP Alliance of Memmingen/Unterallgäu”, “No TTIP Alliance Cologne”, “Stop TTIP Alliance of Münster”).

As concerns individual anti-TTIP organisations that officially declared membership in anti-TTIP campaign networks, the political party GRUENE (126 registered events) hosted and organised the most TTIP-related events in Germany, followed by attac Germany (67 events), the political party DIE LINKE (61 events), BUND (German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation, 52 events), DGB (Confederation of German Trade Unions, 50 events), and KAB (Catholic Labour Movement, 41 events). Further highly vocal anti-TTIP campaign organisations are ver.di (United Services Union, 25 events), ÖDP (Ecological Democratic Party, 23 events), Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (the political foundation of DIE LINKE, 18 events), and Mehr Demokratie (a German NGO promoting democracy and stronger citizen participation, 17 events).

TTIP events organised by political parties reveal a further asymmetry in the debate. Those political parties that are generally in favour of TTIP are significantly less active in hosting events related to TTIP. The political scene regarding TTIP was (and still is) heavily dominated by Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD, 208 events) and Germany’s Green Party (GRUENE, 126 events). In addition, Germany’s left-wing party DIE LINKE (61 events), as well as the Ecologic and Demo- cratic Party (ÖDP, 23 events), show high activity in hosting and organising TTIP-related events. On the other hand, the Liberal Party of Germany (FDP), which is generally in favour of open markets is less active in hosting events on TTIP. Taken together, those political parties that reject TTIP account for 75 percent of all TTIP events organised in Germany between February 2015 and February 2016 (see Figure 16 and Figure 17). Note that Germany’s green and left-wing political parties GRUENE and DIE LINKE performed poorly in the federal elections of 2013, standing at 8.4 and 8.6 percent of total votes respectively. Accordingly, these findings indicate that Germany’s green and left-wing political parties took advantage of TTIP when searching for new thematic issues (high-potential political hot spots) to maintain and establish (anti-establishment) political profiles. The overview of major individual political protagonists, as well as their NGO and political party affiliations, strengthens this hypothesis (see discussion provided below).

34 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 15: TOP 30 “DECLARED” ANTI-TTIP CAMPAIGN NETWORK MEMBER ORGANISATIONS,Local Anti-TTIP BY Groups NUMBER incl. Stopp TTIPOF and HOSTED EVENTS 138 TTIPunfairhandelbar GRUENELocal (Bündnis90/Die Anti-TTIP Groups Grünen, incl. StoppAlliance TTIP '90/The and Local Anti-TTIP Groups incl. Stopp TTIP and 126138 Greens,TTIPunfairhandelbar GermanTTIPunfairhandelbar Green Party) attacGRUENE Germany (Bündnis90/Die (Association for Grünen, the Taxation Alliance of Financial '90/The GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance ‘90/The Greens, German 67 126 TransactionsGreens, German and Citizen's Green Action) Party)Green Party) DIEattac LINKE Germany (Left- (Associationwing Party, Democratic for the Taxation Socialist of Financial Political attac Germany (Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions 6167 TransactionsParty in and Germany) Citizen'sand Citizen’s Action) Action) DIE LINKE (Left-wingDIE Party,LINKEBund für democratic(Left Umwelt-wing Party,und socialist Naturschutz Democratic political Deutschland Socialist party Political e. V.in 52 61 (BUND, GermanParty Federation in Germany) for the EnvironmentGermany) and… DGBBund (Deutscher für Umwelt Gewerkschaftsbund, und Naturschutz Deutschland Confederation e. V.of Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V. (BUND, German 5052 Federation for the(BUND, Environment GermanGerman Federation and Trade Nature for Unions) the EnvironmentConservation) and… DGB (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund,DGBKatholische (Deutscher ArbeiterbewegungConfederation Gewerkschaftsbund, (KAB, of German ConfederationCatholic LabourTrade of 41 50 GermanMovement) Trade Unions) Unions) Katholische Arbeiterbewegung (KAB, Catholic Labour ver.di (United Services Union) 41 Katholische Arbeiterbewegung (KAB, CatholicMovement) Labour Movement) 25 ÖDP (Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei, Ecological ver.di (Unitedver.di (United Services Services Union) Union) 2325 Democratic Party) ÖDP (Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei, Ecological ÖDP (Ökologisch-DemokratischeRosa-Luxemburg Partei,-Stiftung Ecological (Rosa Luxembourg Democratic Foundation) Party) 23 Democratic Party) 18 Mehr Demokratie e.V. (German NGO Promoting Rosa-Luxemburg-StiftungRosa-Luxemburg (Rosa-Stiftung Luxembourg (Rosa Luxembourg Foundation) Foundation) 1718 Democracy and Stronger Citizen Participation) Mehr Demokratie e.V. Forum(GermanMehr Umwelt DemokratieNGO und Entwicklung Promoting e.V. (German (Berlin Democracy NGO-based Promoting platform and 8 17 coordinatingDemocracy initiativesStronger and ofStronger organisations Citizen Citizen Participation) that Participation) focus on… Forum UmweltForum und Umwelt Entwicklung und Entwicklung (Berlin-based (Berlin-based platform platform IG Metall (Metal Workers Union) 8 coordinating initiativescoordinating of organisations initiatives of that organisations focus on that sustainable focus on… 8 development, coordination center of anti-TTIP initiative AfD (Partei Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for IG Metall (Metal Workers Union) 68 IG MetallGermany (Metal Party) Workers Union) AfDAfD (Partei (Partei Alternative Alternative für Deutschland, für Deutschland, Alternative for Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature) 6 AlternativeGermany Party) for Germany Party) Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German NaturfreundeNaturfreunde e.V. (Friends e.V. (Friends of of Nature) Nature) 56 Evangelical/Protestant Church) Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Brot für die Welt (Aid DeutscherOrganisation Kulturrat of (GermanGerman Cultural Evangelical/ Council) 5 Evangelical/ProtestantProtestant Church) Church) Deutscher DeutscherKulturratPiratenpartei Kulturrat (German (German(Pirates Cultural Party Cultural of Council) Germany) Council) 5

PiratenparteiPiratenparteiAbL (Association(Pirates (Pirates Party of Smallholder Party of Germany)of Germany) Farms) 45

AbLDeutscher (AssociationAbL Kulturrat (Association of (German Smallholder of Smallholder Cultural Council)Farms) Farms) 4

NABU (Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union Deutscher Kulturrat (German Cultural Council) 34 NABU (Nature and Biodiversity ConservationGermany) Union Germany) PowerShift e.V. (Verein fürPowerShiftNABU eine (Nature ökologisch-solidarische e.V. (Verein and Biodiversity für eine ökologisch Conservation Energie--solidarische Union & Weltwirtschaft e.V., Berlin-based NGO promoting ecologic and 3 Energie- & WeltwirtschaftGermany) e.V.,solidary Berlin-based economy) NGO… BundesverbandPowerShift e.V.Deutscher (Verein Milchviehhalter für eine ökologisch e.V. -(Associationsolidarische Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter e.V. 23 Energie- & Weltwirtschaft(Associationof Dairy Farmers) e.V., ofBerlin Dairy-based Farmers) NGO… BundesverbandDer Paritätische Deutscher Gesamtverband Milchviehhalter (Federal e.V. Social (Association Welfare Der Paritätische Gesamtverband 2 (Federal Social WelfarePromotionof Dairy Promotion Farmers) Organisation) Organisation) Der Paritätische Gesamtverband (Federal Social Welfare Greenpeace Germany 2 Promotion Organisation)Greenpeace Germany 2

BayernparteirBayernparteiGreenpeace (Bavarian (Bavaria Germany Party) Party) 12

Bioland e.V. (Largest Organic-Food Association in Bayernpartei (Bavaria Party) 1 Bioland e.V. (Largest Organic-Food AssociationGermany) in Germany) Bioland e.V. (Largest Organic-Food Association in Campact (German Campaign and Pretition Network) 1 Campact (German CampaignGermany) and Petition Network) 1 Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO, NGO focussing on Corporate EuropeCampact Observatory (German Campaign(CEO, NGO and Pretition focussing Network) on 1 CorporateCorporate Lobbying Lobbying at EU Level) at EU Level) DKPCorporate (Deutsche Europe Kommunistische Observatory Partei, (CEO, Communist NGO focussing Party on of DKP (Deutsche Kommunistische Partei, Communist Party of 1 CorporateGermany) Lobbying at EU Level) Germany DKP (Deutsche Kommunistische Partei, Communist Party of 1 Germany)

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: institutions include institutions or organisations listed in one of the following sources: members of the organisation “TTIP unfairhandelbar”: http://www.ttip-unfairhandelbar.de/start/wer-wir-sind/mitgliederliste/, network of the anti-TTIP manifestations in Germany: http://ttip-demo.de/home/netzwerk/, members of the alliance “Stop TTIP”: https://stop-ttip.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/05/ECI-Partner-List_16_05_30.pdf.

35 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 16: POLITICAL PARTIES, BY NUMBER OF HOSTED EVENTS

SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) 208 GRUENE (Greens Party of Germany) 126 CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) 103 DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party of Germany) 61 ÖDP (Ecologic Democratic Party of Germany) 23 FDP (Liberal Party of Germany) 17 Freie Wähler (Free Voters of Germany) 10 AfD (Alternative for Germany) 6 Piratenpartei (Pirate Party of Germany) 5 CSU (Christian Social Union) 4 ALFA (Alliance for Progress and Renewal Party of Germany) 1 Bayernpartei (Bavaria Party of Germany) 1

Source: ECIPE analysis.

For political parties, the asymmetries in the motivation to engage in TTIP events becomes even more obvious when the number of hosted events is adjusted by electorate support. According to 26 July 2016 survey data of Forsa (2016), Germany’s major political parties would represent the following shares of votes:

- CDU/CSU: 35 percent - SPD: 22 percent - GRUENE: 13 percent - DIE LINKE: 9 percent - AfD: 9 percent - FDP: 6 percent - Other 6 percent

Event numbers adjusted by voter support demonstrate that Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD) as well as Germany’s Green party (GRUENE) are more than three times more active in hosting and organising TTIP-related events than Germany’s leading conservative political parties (CDU and CSU taken together). Moreover, Germany’s left-wing party (DIE LINKE) is more than twice as active as Germany’s Christian Democrats. Similarly, when voters’ support is taken into consideration, Germany’s liberal party (FDP) performs rather poorly. Germany’s liberals are 6 times less active than both the Greens and the Social Democrats, and 4 times less active than Germany’s left-wing party.

36 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 17: POLITICAL PARTIES’ EVENT ACTIVITY ADJUSTED BY VOTERS’ SUPPORT, INDEX VALUE

GRUENE (Greens Party of Germany) 969.2

SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) 945.5

DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party of Germany) 677.8

Others 466.7

Christian Democrats (CDU and CSU) 305.7

FDP (Liberal Party of Germany) 166.7

AfD (Alternative for Germany) 66.7

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: voters’ support data are taken form Forsa’s weekly survey, which is available at: http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/forsa.htm. The data applied for this index reflect the results of Forsa’s July 26 2016, survey. The general pattern in the data would only marginally change for survey data of February 2015 and February 2016 respectively. For February 2015, the starting point of our analysis, the “activity gap” between the leading party CDU and other parties would even be higher as voter support for Germany’s Christian Democrats was 42 percent (compared to 35 percent on 26 July 2016).

6.2. THEMATIC ISSUES ADDRESSED BY TTIP EVENTS IN GERMANY

For issues addressed by TTIP-related events (see Figure 18), it turns out that TTIP events’ agenda setters predominantly chose subjects related to “state and democracy” (126 mentions), “communal or regional impact” (97 mentions) and “consumer and health protection”. These issues strongly prevail over other issues. In addition, issues related to the “private sector” (businesses, industries and markets, 60 events) and “environmental protection” (53 events) are among those subjects that are frequently addressed by TTIP event organisers.

While other issues such as “ISDS” (39 events), “multinational enterprises” (MNC, 39 events) and “values” (39 events) have also been commonly addressed by the agenda setters, major empirically proven social and economic benefits of open markets have very rarely been addressed. Issues related to “trade and economic growth” (24 events), “jobs and employment” (13 events), “competition” (3 events), innovation (1 event), and investment (2 events) have evidently not played an important role in the discussions set up for TTIP. Taken together, issues that are widely associated with the positive effects that are likely to result from free trade account for a mere total of 2 percent of all issues addressed by local TTIP events in Germany. 98 percent of all issues that were set to be publicly presented and debated do not refer to standard pro-trade arguments.

The asymmetry in the number of issues chosen for public debate is also mirrored by the sentiment expressed as conveyed by TTIP event headers and sub-titles. While a majority of 66 percent of event headers convey a neutral sentiment to TTIP, 31 percent of TTIP headers convey a negative message about TTIP. Only 3 percent of TTIP events convey positive sentiments. Taking into consideration that neutral statements are usually less intuitive and less memorable for the personal mind than biased and more polarised ways of expression, the imbalance between positive and negative sentiment headers becomes even more pertinent. Leaving aside event headers of neutral sentiment, only 9 percent of all remaining events headers convey a positive message, while 91 percent draw negative pictures of TTIP (see Figure 19).

37 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 18: MAJOR SUBJECTS ADDRESSED BY TTIP EVENTS IN GERMANY

3: State & Democracy 126 18: Communal or regional impact 97 4: Consumer & health protection 95 8: Private sector 60 5: Environmental protection 53 19: Sector-specific impact 45 11: Fair Trade 39 20: Values 39 8: MNC 39 1: ISDS 35 7: Culture 27 9: SME 26 13: Trade and economic growth 24 14: Jobs and employment 13 6: Public Services 13 2: Transparency 11 10: Regulatory Cooperation 7 12: Alternative Mandate 4 15: Competition 3 17: Investment 2 16: Innovation 1

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note that 988 events have been coded “other/non-specific”. Multiple selections may apply. Note that “17: Investment” refers to “implications for investment” and “opportunities for investment”, while “1: ISDS” refers to topical issues related to investment protection and (bilateral) investment treaties.

FIGURE 19: SENTIMENT CONVEYED BY EVENT HEADER

positive 3%

negative 31%

neutral/ambivalent 66%

Source: ECIPE analysis.

As concerns the development of those issues most frequently addressed by TTIP-related events, the number of events slightly decreased over time. Summer and Christmas holidays mark low activity periods (see Figure 20). At the same time, the composition of events changed somewhat over time. In February 2015, issues related to “state and democracy”, “consumer and health protection” and “communal and regional impact” were most frequently addressed by TTIP event organisers. While issues related to “consumer and health protection”, “ISDS” and “environmental protection” lost momentum over time, subjects related to “state and democracy” and “communal and regional impact” kept momentum in the public debate (see Figure 21). The

38 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

numbers indicate that issues related to democratic participation at federal and sub-federal level, including regulatory cooperation, public services, public procurement and ISDS, which is frequently claimed to be an “attack against democracy”, dominate the TTIP debate in Germany.

FIGURE 20: DEVELOPMENT OF MOST FREQUENT CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS OVER TIME, ABSOLUTE NUMBERS

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1: ISDS 3: State & Democracy 4: Consumer & health protection 5: Environmental protection Source: ECIPE analysis.18: Communal or regional impact

FIGURE 21: DEVELOPMENT OF MOST FREQUENT CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS OVER TIME, RELATIVE PROPORTION

100%

75%

50%

25%

1: ISDS 3: State & Democracy 4: Consumer & health protection 5: Environmental protection Source: ECIPE analysis.18: Communal or regional impact

6.3. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TTIP EVENTS IN GERMANY

The regional analysis reveals that the greatest number of TTIP events took place in Germany’s largest federal states, as measured by population size: Bavaria (314 events), North Rhine-West- phalia (278 events) and Baden-Wuerttemberg (242 events). Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg also rank high (2nd and 3rd) when event numbers are adjusted by population size, followed by Bremen, which is a stronghold of attac and Campact. At the same time, as shown by Figure 22, the number of those events whose headers and sub-titles convey a negative message about TTIP is highest in Berlin, Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg, and Bremen. By comparison, the number of

39 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

TTIP-related events adjusted by population size is significantly lower for former East German states (New Länder, see Figure 22).

FIGURE 22: NUMBER OF TTIP EVENTS BROKEN DOWN BY GERMAN FEDERAL STATE

Berlin Bavaria Baden-Wuerttemberg Bremen Hesse Hamburg Saarland North Rhine-Westphalia Rhineland-Palatinate Lower Saxony Saxony* Schleswig-Holstein Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania* Thuringia* Brandenburg*

Saxonynegative-Anhalt* neutral positive 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

negativ neutral positiv

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: asterisk marks former East Germany states. Number of events adjusted by size of state population and multiplied by 1,000.

6.4. TTIP EXPERTS AND SPEAKERS IN GERMANY

Our dataset allows us to study TTIP events’ panellists (speakers and experts) as well as their institutional background. 2,051 speakers were allocated to political parties, individual businesses, business associations, and declared anti-TTIP campaign groups. For this grouping of major stakeholders, the data reveal that the majority of speakers, which were often presented as distinguished experts on TTIP, is affiliated with declared members of professional anti-TTIP campaign groups in Germany (46 percent), followed by panellists affiliated with political parties (32 percent). 15 percent of speakers were affiliated with business associations and 7 percent represented individual businesses (see Figure 23).

40 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 23: DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR GROUPS OF STAKEHOLDERS’ SPEAKERS AT TTIP EVENTS IN GERMANY

Individual Businesses 7% Business Federations 15% Member of Anti- TTIP Campaign Group 46%

Political Party w/o Anti-TTIP Campaign Group Members 32%

Source: ECIPE analysis.

As concerns business associations, most speakers were affiliated with regional Chambers of Com- merce and their umbrella organisations, the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (IHK and DIHK, 103 registered speakers), followed by the confederation of Ger- man Industry (BDI, 19 speakers), the American Chamber of Commerce (17 speakers), German Chambers of Crafts (16 speakers), and the Bavarian Industry Association (vbw, 10 speakers). Business groups affiliated with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) accounted for 9 speakers (see Figure 24). 137 speakers were affiliated to individual businesses, and only three (major German industrial) companies and one law firm sent speakers to more than one event: (BASF SE: 7 speaker occurrences, Siemens AG: 5 speaker occurrences, Daimler AG: 4 speaker occurrences, McDermott Will and Emery: 2 speaker occurrences, see Figure 25).13

The number of speakers affiliated with declared member organisations of anti-TTIP protest networks significantly outweighs the number of speakers affiliated with businesses and business associations (see Figure 26). Between February 2015 and February 2016, speakers affiliated with the political parties GRUENE (Greens, 225 speakers) and DIE LINKE (The Left, 124 speakers) dominated in local debates set up to inform and discuss TTIP. Further salient players in the debate are speakers affiliated with DGB (the Confederation of German Trade Unions, 88 speakers), attac Germany (an anti-globalisation, anti-corporate activist group, 83 speakers), Mehr Demokratie (an NGO Promoting Democracy and Stronger Citizen Participation, 61 speakers), BUND (the German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation, 57 speakers), and speakers affiliated with local anti-TTIP groups (46 speakers). It should be noted that DGB and BUND are member organisations of attac Germany.

13 McDermott Will and Emery is an internationally operating law firm specialised in international dispute arbitration. Dr Sabine Konrad, a German Partner focusing on international dispute resolution, is a well-recognised expert for international dispute arbitration and was designated by the federal government of Germany to the Panel of Arbitrators of the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

41 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 24: NUMBER OF SPEAKERS AFFILIATED WITH BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS (TOP 20)

IHK/DIHK (Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce) 103

Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI, Association of German… 19

American Chamber of Commerce 17

Handwerkskammern (Chamber of Crafts) 16

Verband der Bayrischen Wirtschaft vbw Association of Bavarian Industry) 10

CDU Mittelstandvereinigung/Wirtschaftsrat (CDU Business Circles) 9

Verband der Chemischen Industrie (VCI, Association of Chemical Industry) 6

Liberaler Mittelstand (Association of Liberal SMEs) 5

Die Familienunternehmer (ASU, Association of German Family Businesses) 5

Verband der Automobilindustire (VDA, Association of Automotive Industry) 5

Bundesverband Mittelständische Wirtschaft (BVMW, Association of SMEs) 4

Deutscher Bauernverband (German Farmers' Association) 4

US Chamber of Commerce 4

Unternehmerverbände Niedersachsen (Business Associations of Lower … 3

American Chamber of Commerce 3

Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter (Association of Dairy Farmers) 3

UnternehmensGrün (Association of Green Businesses) 2

Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie (Central… 2

Verband Deutscher Maschinen-und Anlagenbau (German Engineering… 1

Source: ECIPE analysis.

FIGURE 25: NUMBER OF SPEAKERS AFFILIATED WITH INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES

BASF SE 7

Siemens AG 5

Daimler AG 4

McDermott Will & Emery 2

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: number reflect businesses’ whose speakers appeared at more than one event.

In addition to speakers representing labour unions (193 speakers including DGB), speakers affiliated with clerical organisations (103 speakers) such as KAB (the Catholic Labour Movement, 35 speakers) as well as Brot für die Welt (an Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Church, 13 speakers), are also frequently found on expert panels on TTIP. On the other hand, while speakers affiliated with environmental organisation (129 speakers) often appear on TTIP panels, speakers affiliated with consumer protection organisations (30 speakers) are relatively underrepresented.

It turns out from the data that the number of speakers representing the top 2 most active anti-TTIP groups already exceeds the number of speakers representing top 20 most active business organisations. Moreover, the number of speakers representing the top 20 most active anti-TTIP groups exceed the number of speakers sent by the top 20 business associations by more than 300 percent, and the number of all speakers that are affiliated with individual businesses (109 speakers) by more than 700 percent.

42 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 26: NUMBER OF SPEAKERS AT TTIP EVENTS IN GERMANY BY “DECLARED” ANTI-TTIP CAMPAIGN MEMBER ORGANISATIONS

GRUENE (Bündnis90/DieGRUENE Grünen, (Bündnis90/ Alliance '90/The Die Grünen, Greens, Alliance ‘90/ GermanThe Greens,Green Party) German Green Party) 225

DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party, democratic socialist political party in DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party, 124 democraticGermany) socialist party in Germany)

DGB (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund,DGB (Deutscher Confederation Gewerkschaftsbund, of German ConfederationTrade Unions) of German Trade Union) 88

attacattac Germany Germany (Association (Association for the Taxationfor the Taxation of Financial ofTransactions Financial and Citizen'sTransactions Action) and Citizen’s Action) 83

Mehr DemokratieMehr Demokratiee.V. e.V. (German NGO (German Promoting NGO Democracy promoting and democracyStronger and Citizen stronger Participation) citizen participation) 61

Bund fürBund Umwelt für Umwelt and Naturschutzund Naturschutz Deutschland Deutschland e.e.V. V. (BUND,(BUND, German FederationGerman Federation for the Environment for the Environment and Nature and Nature Conservation) Conservation) 57

Local Anti-LocalTTIP GroupsANTI-TTIP incl. Stopp Groups TTIP and incl. TTIPunfairhandelbar Stpp TTIP and 46 TTIPunfairhandelbar

Katholische ArbeiterbewegungKatholische Arbeiterbewegung (KAB, (KAB, Catholic Catholic Labour Labour Movement) Movement) 35

ver.diver.di (United (United Services Services Union)Union) 33

ÖDP (Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei, Ecological Democratic ÖDP (Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei, 26 Party)Ecological Democratic Party)

IG MetallIG Metall (Metal (Metal Workrs Workers Union) Union) 23

ForumForum Umwelt Umwelt und Entwicklungand Entwicklung (Berlin-based (Berlin-based platform coordinating platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development,initiatives of organisations coordination that focus centre on sustainableof anti-TTIP development, initiative 20 coordination center of anti-TTIP initiative ‘TTIPunfairhandelbar’) 'TTIPunfairhandelbar') DeutscherDeutscher Kulturrat Kulturrat (German (German Cultural Cultural Council) Council) 16

Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/ 13 Church) Protestant Church) PowerShiftPowerShift e.V. (Vereign e.V. (Verein für eine für eine ökologisch-solidarische ökologisch-solidarische Energie Energie-- & & WeltwirtschafWeltwirtschaft e.V., Berlin-based e.V., Berlin-based NGO NGO promoting promoting ecologic and and 13 solidary economy) solidary economy) UmweltinstitutUmweltinstitut München München e.V. (Munich-based e.V. (Munich-based NGO NGO promoting promoting ecologicecologic policies policies and sustainableand sustainable agriculture) agriculture) 12

AbL (AssociationAbL (Association of ofSmallholder Smallholder Farms)farms) 10

NaturfreundeNaturfreunde e.V. e.V. (Friends (Friends of of Nature) Nature) 10

FoodFood Watch e.V. e.V. (Organisation (Organisation that focusesthat focuses on protecting on protecting consumer consumerrights as theyrights pertain as they to food pertain quality) to food quality 9

PiratenparteiPiratenpartei (Pirates (Pirates Party Party of of Germany) Germany) 9

AfD (ParteiAfD Alternativ (Partei Alternative für Deutschland, für Deutschland, Alternative Alternative for for Germany Germany Party) Party) 8

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO, NGO focussing on Corporate Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO, NGO focussing on 7 LobbyingCorporate at EU Level) Lobbying at EU level

Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (Rosa Luxembourg Foundation) 5 Continued... Campact (German Campaign and Pretition Network) 4

Greenpeace Germany 4

Der Paritätische Gesamtverband (Federal Social Welfare Promotion 2 Organisation) 43

Germanwatch (Bonn-based Sustainable Development NGO) 2

LobbyControl e.V. 2

AfA of SPD (SPD Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Arbeitnehmerfragen, SPD Working Group on Issues Concerning Employees) 1

Deutscher Naturschutzring (German League for Nature, Animal and Environment Protection) 1

Friends of the Earth (International Network of Environmental Organizations) 1

NABU (Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union Germany) 1

OXFAM (Anti-poverty, Sustainable Development NGO) 1

UnternehmensGrün (Association of 'Green' Businesses) 1 GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance '90/The Greens, German Green Party) 225

DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party, democratic socialist political party in Germany) 124

DGB (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, Confederation of German Trade Unions) 88 attac Germany (Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and Citizen's Action) 83

Mehr Demokratie e.V. (German NGO Promoting Democracy and Stronger Citizen Participation) 61

Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V. (BUND, German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation) 57

Local Anti-TTIP Groups incl. Stopp TTIP and TTIPunfairhandelbar 46

Katholische Arbeiterbewegung (KAB, Catholic Labour Movement) 35

ver.di (United Services Union) 33

ÖDP (Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei, Ecological Democratic Party) 26

IG Metall (Metal Workers Union) 23

Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Berlin-based platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development, 20 coordination center of anti-TTIP initiative 'TTIPunfairhandelbar')

Deutscher Kulturrat (German Cultural Council) 16

Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Church) 13

PowerShift e.V. (Verein für eine ökologisch-solidarische Energie- & Weltwirtschaft e.V., Berlin-based NGO promoting ecologic and 13 solidary economy) Umweltinstitut München e.V. (Munich-based NGO promoting ecologic policies and sustainable agriculture) 12

AbL (Association of Smallholder Farms) 10

Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature) 10

Food Watch e.V. (Organisation that focuses on protecting consumer rights as they pertain to food quality) 9

Piratenpartei (Pirates Party of Germany) 9

AfD (Partei Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany Party) 8 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016 Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO, NGO focussing on Corporate Lobbying at EU Level) 7

Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (Rosa(Rosa LuxembourgLuxembourg Foundation) Foundation) 5

CampactCampact (German (German Campaign campaign and and Pretition petition Network) network) 4

GreenpeaceGreenpeace Germany Germany 4

Der ParitätischeDer Gesamtverband Partitätische Gesamtverband (Federal Social (federal Welfare social Promotion welfare Organisation) promotion organisation) 2

GermanwatchGermanwatch (Bonn (Bonn-based-based Sustainable Sustainable Development Development NGO)NGO) 2

LobbyControlLobbyControl e.V. e.V. 2

AfA ofAfA SPD of (SPD SPD (SPDArbeitsgemeinschaft Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Arbeitnehmerfragen, für Arbeitnehmerfragen, SPD WorkingSPD Group Working on GroupIssues Concerningon Issues Concerning Employees) Employees) 1

Deutscher Naturschutzring (German League for Nature, Animal and Deutscher Naturschutzring (German League for Nature, Animal 1 Environment Protection)and Environment Protection)

FriendsFriends of of the the Earth Earth (International (international Network network of of Environmental environmental Organizations) organisations) 1

NABUNABU (Nature (Nature and and Biodiversity Biodiversity Conservation Conservation Union Union Germany) Germany) 1

OXFAMOXFAM (Anti (anti-poverty,-poverty, Sustainable sustainable Development devlopment NGO)NGO) 1

UnternehmensGrünUnternehmensGrün (Association (Association of of'Green' ‘Green’ Businesses) Businesses 1

For speakers representing political parties in Germany, the numbers reveal that politicians of the Social Democrats (SPD), the Greens (GRUENE) and the Left (DIE LINKE) heavily dominated the panels on local TTIP events in Germany. By contrast, those parties that are generally in favour of free trade and open markets (the Christian Democrats and the Liberals) were significantly less active in discussing and informing about TTIP (see Figure 27).

44 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 27: NUMBER OF SPEAKERS FROM POLITICAL PARTIES

SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) 383 GRUENE (Greens Party of Germany) 226 CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) 183 DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party of Germany) 123 FDP (Liberal Party of Germany) 32 CSU (Christian Social Union) 31 ÖDP (Ecologic Democratic Party of Germany) 28 Freie Wähler (Free Voters of Germany) 20 AfD (Alternative for Germany) 8 Piratenpartei (Pirate Party of Germany) 8 ALFA (Alliance for Progress and Renewal Party of Germany) 6 Bayernpartei (Bavaria Party of Germany) 1

Source: ECIPE analysis.

Numbers for political parties’ speakers adjusted by voter support demonstrate that politicians of Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD), Germany’s Green party (GRUENE) and Germany’s left- wing party (DIE LINKE) were about 10 times more active in speaking on TTIP-related events than Germany’s leading conservative political parties (CDU and CSU taken together, see Figure 28). Politicians of both the Greens and Social Democrats were more than three times as active as politicians of the Christian Democrats. Similarly, politicians of Germany’s left-wing party were almost three times as active as politicians of the Union of Christian Democrats. Adjusted by voters support, politicians of Germany’s liberal party (FDP) were significantly less active compared to Germany’s Social Democrats, the Greens and the Left, but slightly more active than Germany’s Christian Democrats.

The asymmetry in political parties’ engagement in local debates, which can be taken as a close proxy for parties’ overall engagement in the debate about TTIP, is also mirrored by the activity of those political foundations that are affiliated to major political parties in Germany.14 As outlined by Figure 29, the political foundation of Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD), as well as the political foundation of Germany’s left-wing party, are most active in organising TTIP-related events. At the same time, speakers representing the SPD’s Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung are most active in TTIP panel debates, followed by speakers representing the political foundation of the liberal party, the FDP’s Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung. By contrast, both the CDU’s Kon- rad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the CSU’s Hans-Seidel-Stiftung underperform in speaker activity. It is noteworthy that the political foundation of Germany’s left-wing party also underperforms in speakers’ activity. Given the foundation’s high degree of activity in organising events, as well as the outstandingly high level of activity of left-wing party politicians in anti-TTIP campaign work, these numbers already indicate that the Rosa-Luxemburg-Foundation served as a publicly-funded platform for anti-TTIP campaign groups (see discussion below).

14 In Germany, political foundations are state-financed organisations that are affiliated to those political parties (typically) represented in the federal parliament (the Bundestag). Political foundations’ work is primarily based on each party’s doctrines and priorities, and includes work related to providing information about the ideological cause, organisation of public and non-public events, publication of pamphlets and international funding for democracy building (in cooperation with partners around the world).

45 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 28: POLITICAL PARTIES’ SPEAKER ACTIVITY ADJUSTED BY VOTERS’ SUPPORT, INDEX VALUE

SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) 1740.9

GRUENE (Greens Party of Germany) 1738.5

DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party of Germany) 1366.7

Others 1050.0

FDP (Liberal Party of Germany) 533.3

Christian Democrats (CDU and CSU) 522.9

AfD (Alternative for Germany) 88.9

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: voters’ support data are taken form Forsa’s weekly survey, which is available at: http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/forsa.htm. The data applied for this index reflect the results of Forsa’s July 26 2016, survey. The general pattern in the data would only marginally change for survey data of February 2015 and February 2016 respectively. For February 2015, the starting point of our analysis, the “activity gap” between the leading party CDU and other parties would be even higher as voter support for Germany’s Christian Democrats was 42 percent (compared to 35 percent on 26 July 2016).

FIGURE 29: POLITICAL FOUNDATIONS IN THE TTIP DEBATE IN GERMANY

2 Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (GRUENE) 6 3 Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung (CSU) 18 7 Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (CDU) 21 13 Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung (FDP) 17 16 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (SPD) 32 6 Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (DIE LINKE) 21

Number of Panelists/Speakers Number of 'TTIP, CETA, TiSA' Event Owners

Source: ECIPE analysis.

46 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

6.5. HORSE(S) AND RIDER(S) IN ANTI-TTIP CAMPAIGN WORK IN GERMANY

Taking a bird’s eye perspective on the TTIP debate scene in Germany, the data presented in Sec- tions 4.1 (events hosts and organisers), 4.2 (thematic issues addressed by events), 4.3 (regional distribution of events) and 4.4 (speakers on event panels), reveal a number of patterns that can be summarised as follows:

1. Businesses and political parties that are generally pro trade show a weak motivation to engage and shape the debate, compared to organisations that officially constitute or show sympathy to the anti-TTIP campaign network. Declared anti-TTIP campaign group member organisations show a significantly higher activity in organising events and setting the agenda on subjects related to TTIP.

2. TTIP events’ agenda setters primarily chose topical subjects related to “state and democracy”, “communal or regional impact”, “consumer and health protection”. Accordingly, 98 percent of all issues that were set to be publicly presented and debated do not refer to pro- trade, pro-competition, pro-open markets arguments.

3. Anti-TTIP groups are most active in Germany’s most densely populated federal states, which account for about 50 percent of Germany total population: Bavaria, Baden-Wuert- temberg and North Rhine-Westphalia.

4. The number of speakers that officially represent the top 2 most active anti-TTIP groups (Germany’s Green party GRUENE and Germany’s left-wing party DIE LINKE) exceeds the number of speakers officially representing the top 20 most active business organisations.

5. Numbers for political parties’ speakers demonstrate that politicians of Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD), Germany’s Green party (GRUENE) and Germany’s left-wing party (DIE LINKE) were about 10 times more active in speaking on TTIP-related events than Germany’s leading conservative political parties (CDU and CSU taken together). Politi- cians of both the Greens and Social Democrats were in each case more than three times as active as politicians of the Christian Democrats. Politicians of Germany’s left-wing party were almost three times as active as politicians of the Union of Christian Democrats. Pol- iticians of Germany’s liberal party (FDP) were significantly less active compared to Social Democrats, Greens and the Left, but more active than Christian Democrats.

The patterns in the data show that the public debate about TTIP in Germany is highly biased towards events and issues set by declared anti-TTIP organisations and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which is highly critical of TTIP. This asymmetry is reflected by the sheer number and frequency of events. Anti-TTIP organisations shape the TTIP debate in Germany by setting agendas and framing the narratives about TTIP.

In this section, we zoom in to explore in more depth the most prominent individuals and organisations that engage in public debates about TTIP and we depict the messages spread by those organisations and individuals that voice strongest criticism about TTIP and other trade and investment agreements. In addition, we discuss motivations and interest of those organisations and individuals that engage most actively in professional protest campaigns against TTIP.

47 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

6.5.1. TOP 50 SPEAKERS ON TTIP AND INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Table 4, which provides an overview of the 50 most active TTIP speakers in Germany, offers a good starting point for the analysis of opinion leaders in the debate about TTIP in Germany. Table 4 reveals that 37 of Germany’s most active speakers on TTIP either represent declared member organisations of Germany’s formal anti-TTIP protest network (33 individuals) or have voiced strong aversion to TTIP (4 individuals).

Adjusted by the number of public appearances, 66 percent of Germany’s top 50 TTIP panellists officially support the anti-TTIP protest scene in Germany. Similarly, about 70 percent and 60 percent of Germany’s most active, i.e. top 20 and top 10 TTIP figureheads respectively, either represent declared anti-TTIP protest groups or strongly reject TTIP. It should be noted that, contrary to Germany’s leading conservative parties CDU and CSU, 4 of Germany’s most active Social Democratic Party’s speakers are among the top 10 speakers on TTIP in Germany. With the exception of SPD MEP Bernd Lange, who is the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, and SPD MP Dirk Wiese, who is a member of the Bunde- stag Committee on Economic Affairs and Energy, 6 SPD politicians that are in the list of top 50 speakers on TTIP strongly reject TTIP.

A great majority of anti-TTIP speakers, including politicians of Germany’s Green (GRUENE), left-wing (DIE LINKE) and Social Democratic (SPD) parties, are affiliated with more than one declared anti-TTIP organisation, e.g., environmental organisations, clerical organisations and labour unions.

The group of top 50 speakers on TTIP in Germany includes:

-11 individuals/politicians that are affiliated with Green party (GRUENE), - 10 individuals that are affiliated with environmental organisations, - 8 individuals/politicians that are affiliated with Germany’s Social Democratic party (SPD), - 7 individuals that are affiliated with labour unions, - 6 individuals/politicians that are affiliated with Germany’s left-wing party (DIE LINKE), - 6 individuals that are affiliated with clerical, i.e. Catholic or Evangelical, organisations, - 4 individuals that are affiliated with “attac Germany”, - 3 individuals that are affiliated with “Mehr Demokratie”, a civil society group promoting elements of direct democracy, - 2 politicians that are affiliated with the Union of Christian Democrats, and - 1 politician of Germany’s liberal party FDP (see Table 4).

48 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

TABLE 4: TOP 50 TTIP EVENT SPEAKERS AND INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION

Speaker member Number of of or affiliated with Public Position Name “declared” Institutional Affiliation Appear- anti-TTIP Campaign ances Group - SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany) - Chairman of INTA, the European Parliament Committee on International Trade no, but SPD generally - Theologian and professional teacher of religious sceptical towards thought TTIP, CETA and TiSA, Bernd Lange, 1 46 member of, or affiliated - Former head of discussion group “Church and MEP with, several anti-TTIP SPD” protest movement - Founder of Union-Regio-Net – an international organisations network of labour unions - Member of German Metal Workers Union - Member of Naturfreunde (Friends of Nature Germany) - GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance '90/ The Greens, German Green Party) - State Association of GRUENE North Rhine-West- phalia (together with top 50 TTIP speakers Stefan Engstfeld and Ernst-Christoph Stolper) - Co-founder of attac Germany (which is, amongst others, supported by prominent anti-TTIP groups ver.di, GEW, BUND, Naturfreunde, Pax Christi, Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft, and various individuals such as Andrea Nahles (the SPD’s current Minister for Labour and Social Affairs and member of the German government) - Long-standing advisor to the advisory board of attac Germany - Advisor to Campact e.V. - Former representative of environmental group Sven Giegold, 2 29 yes BUND to attac Germany MEP - Member and advisor to the German institute “Green Budget Germany” (together with top 50 TTIP speaker and lead campaign coordinator Jürgen Maier of Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung) - Member of Greens/EFA group in European Parliament - Member of ver.di (United Services Union) - Member of Mehr Demokratie e. V. (together with top TTIP speakers Sarah Händel, Alexander Trennhäuser, Roman Huber) - Member of steering board of German Evangelical Church Conference - Advisor to German Ecumenical Church - Founding member of the “Institut Solidarische Moderne” (institute promoting a solidary future, together with top 50 TTIP speakers Karl Bär, Nina Scheer, Hilde Mattheis) - Initiative Junger Transatlantiker (Young Transat- lantic Initiative) 3 Jacob Scrot 28 no - Member of youth organisation of CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands, Christian Democratic Union of Germany) - ÖDP (Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei, Klaus Buchner, Ecological Democratic Party) 4 22 yes MEP - Member of Greens/EFA group in European Parliament

49 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Speaker member Number of of or affiliated with Public Position Name “declared” Institutional Affiliation Appear- anti-TTIP Campaign ances Group - Mehr Demokratie e.V. (German NGO promoting 5 Sarah Händel 20 yes democracy and stronger citizen participation) - SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany) no, but strong voice Maria Noichl, 6 20 against TTIP, CETA - Member of European Parliament Committee of MEP and TiSA Agriculture and Rural Development - Affiliated with Stop-TTIP-Munich initiative Daniel Caspary, - CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutsch- 7 19 no MEP lands, Christian Democratic Union of Germany) - GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance '90/ The Greens, German Green Party) Uwe Kekeritz, 8 14 yes - Development Policy Spokesman of GRUENE MP (Germany) party Germany - Member of attac Germany - Member of ver.di (United Services Unions) - SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany) - Federal Commissioner for cultural affairs in the Hans-Jürgen 9 13 yes trade policy committee of the European Council Blinn (services and investments) - Affiliated with Deutscher Kulturrat (German Cultural Council) - SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany), left-wing Joachim 10 12 yes of SPD Schuster, MEP - Member of ver.di (United Services Union of Ger- many) - Umweltinstitut München e.V. (Munich-based NGO promoting ecologic policies and sustainable agriculture) - GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance '90/ 11 Karl Bär 12 yes The Greens, German Green Party) - Founding member of the “Institut Solidarische Moderne” (institute promoting a solidary future, together with Sven Giegold, Nina Scheer, Hilde Mattheis) - AmCham (Amerikanische Handelskammer, Amer- 12 Andreas Povel 12 no ican Chamber of Commerce) - DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party, democratic socialist Fabio De Masi, political party in Germany) 13 12 yes MEP - Member of ver.di (United Services Union of Ger- many) - GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance '90/ Stefan The Greens, German Green Party) Engstfeld, - State Association of GRUENE North Rhine-West- 14 Member of 11 yes phalia (Sven Giegold and Ernst-Christoph Stolper) State Parliament - Member of the State Parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia) - Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V. (BUND, German Federation for the Environ- Ernst- ment and Nature Conservation) 15 Christoph 11 yes - State Association of GRUENE North Rhine-West- Stolper phalia (Sven Giegold and Stefan Engstfeld) - Official coordinator/speaker of campaign group “TTIPunfairhandelbar”

50 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Speaker member Number of of or affiliated with Public Position Name “declared” Institutional Affiliation Appear- anti-TTIP Campaign ances Group - Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Berlin-based platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development) - Head of coordination centre of German anti-TTIP initiative “TTIPunfairhandelbar” - Head of coordination centre of European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP “Stop TTIP” and “European Stop TTIP” campaign (funded by German Federal Ministry for the Environment)

16 Jürgen Maier 11 yes - GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance '90/ The Greens, German Green Party, member of the federal executive board of GRUNE 1987-1991) - Affiliated with Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung steering board member and top 50 TTIP speaker Sven Hilbig who represents Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Church) - Coordinator of most declared anti-TTIP protest groups that are active members of Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung Alexander - Mehr Demokratie e.V. (German NGO promoting 17 11 yes Trenn-heuser democracy and stronger citizen participation) Wolfgang - Publik-Forum (German magazine covering Chris- 18 11 yes Kessler tian, religious and societal issues) - Mehr Demokratie e.V. (German NGO promoting 19 Roman Huber 10 yes democracy and stronger citizen participation) - GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance '90/ Harald Ebner, The Greens, German Green Party) 20 10 yes MP - Member of NABU (Nature and Biodiversity Con- servation Union Germany) - foodwatch e.V. (Organisation that focuses on protecting consumer rights as they pertain to food 21 Thilo Bode 10 yes quality) - Former DirectoMarkus Ferber, - CSU (Christlich Soziale Union in Bayern, Christian 26 9 no MEP Social Union in Bavaria) - GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance '90/ Martin The Greens, German Green Party) 27 Häusling, 9 yes - Organic farmer and expert for agriculture MEP - Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development - GRUENE (Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Alliance '90/ The Greens, German Green Party) Maria - Member of AbL Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerlicher 29 Heubuch, 8 yes Landwirtschaft (Association of smallholder far- MEP mers) - Member of Bundesverband Deutscher Milchvieh- halter (German Association of Dairy Farmers)

51 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Speaker member Number of of or affiliated with Public Position Name “declared” Institutional Affiliation Appear- anti-TTIP Campaign ances Group John B. - US Embassy in Germany 30 8 no Emerson - Bundesministrerium für Wirtschaft und Energie 31 Heinz Hetmeier 8 no (BMWi, Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy) William E. - US Consul General to Bavaria 32 8 no Moeller 33 Lutz Güllner 8 no - European Commission - DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party, democratic socialist Klaus Ernst, political party in Germany) 34 8 yes MP - Former secretary at Metal Workers Union Ger- many - Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (Rosa Luxembourg Foundation), 35 Christa Luft 7 yes - Member and former MP of DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party of Germany) - Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland 36 Maja Volland 7 yes e. V. (BUND, German Federation for the Environ- ment and Nature Conservation) - Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature) - Member and former MP of DIE LINKE (Left- wing Party, democratic socialist political party in 37 Uwe Hiksch 7 yes Germany) - Speaker of the Communist-Marxist Forum of DIE LINKE (classified as anti-constitutional by Ger- man courts in 2009) - University of Bielefeld, Faculty of Law 38 Andreas Fisahn 7 yes - Member of scientific council of attac Germany - Katholische Arbeiterbewegung (KAB, Catholic 39 Ralf Welter 7 yes Labour Movement) - DIE ZEIT (national weekly newspaper published in the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg) 40 Petra Pinzler 7 yes - Affiliated with attac Germany - Affiliated with official Anti-TTIP protest movement - SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany) - Member of Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature) - Former head of “Unternehmensgrün e.V.”, a Ger- no, but highly critical Nina Scheer, man association of “green” businesses 41 7 towards TTIP, CETA MP - Member of Parliamentarian Left of SPD (Parlam- and TiSA entarische Linke der SPD) - Founding member of the “Institut Solidarische Moderne” (institute promoting a solidary future, together with Sven Giegold, Karl Bär, Hilde Mat- theis) - SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, no, but SPD generally Social Democratic Party of Germany) 42 Dirk Wiese, MP 7 sceptical towards TTIP, - Member of Bundestag Committee of Economic CETA and TiSA Affairs and Energy

52 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Speaker member Number of of or affiliated with Public Position Name “declared” Institutional Affiliation Appear- anti-TTIP Campaign ances Group - Deutscher Kulturrat (German Cultural Council) Olaf - Member of cultural forum of SPD 43 7 yes Zimmermann - Member and cultural advisor to Protestant Church's state synod of Berlin and Brandenburg Bertram - Verband der Bayrischen Wirtschaft (vdb, Associa- 44 6 no Brossardt tion of Bavarian Businesses - DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party, democratic socialist Helmut Scholz, 45 6 yes political party in Germany) MEP - Founding member of the European Left - SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany) - Member of Parliamentarian Left of SPD (Parlam- entarische Linke der SPD) - Founder and speaker of SPD Forum Demokratische Linke 21 (Forum of Democratic Left 21) - Member of Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature) Hilde Mattheis, no, but rejecting TTIP, 46 6 - Member of Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz MP CETA and TiSA Deutschland e. V. (BUND, German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation) - Member of Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissen- schaft (GEW, Union for Education and Science) - Founding member of the “Institut Solidarische Moderne” (institute promoting a solidary future, together with Sven Giegold, Nina Scheer, Karl Bär) - University Erlangen-Nürnberg - Affiliated with SPD Markus Kra- no, but critical towards 47 6 Affiliated with Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, the ed- jewski TTIP, CETA and TiSA - ucational foundation of DGB (Deutscher Gew- erkschaftsbund, Confederation of German Trade Unions) - attac Germany (Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and Citizen's Action) 48 Steffen Stierle 6 yes - Member of DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party, democratic socialist political party in Germany) - ver.di (United Services Union) - Former employee of DGB (Deutscher Gewerk- 49 Dierk Hirschel 6 yes schaftsbund, Confederation of German Trade Unions) - Member of board of SPD Forum Demokratische Linke 21 (Forum of Democratic Left 21) - Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Church) - Former employee of Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, the political foundation of GRUENE (Bündnis90/ Die Grünen, Alliance '90/The Greens, German 50 Sven Hilbig 6 yes Green Party) - Member of Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Berlin-based platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development, coordination centre of anti-TTIP initiative 'TTIPunfairhandelbar')

Source: ECIPE analysis.

53 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

6.5.2. TOP INFLUENCERS AND INSTITUTIONAL NETWORKS WITHIN GERMANY’S ANTI-TTIP POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SCENE

Based on the information provided by Table 4, a visualisation of how Germany’s top 50 speakers on TTIP are connected with those institutions that are most active in shaping the debate is given by Figure 30 (full network of TTIP speakers) and Figure 31 (network of anti-TTIP speakers and institutions). Figure 31 shows that the great majority of top 50 speakers on TTIP are either officially affiliated with those institutions that are declared members of anti-TTIP campaign- net works, or they strongly reject TTIP in public discourse. By contrast, representatives of individual businesses and business associations (2 affiliated speakers) are significantly underrepresented in the list of top 50 TTIP influencers (and beyond). For anti-TTIP protest groups and speakers, the institutional linkages reveal a number of noteworthy facts:

1. The two leading speakers on TTIP in Germany, Bernd Lange (SPD Member of the European Parliament) and Sven Giegold (Green Party Member of the European Par- liament) are affiliated with several, i.e. more than one, declared anti-TTIP protest -or ganisations.

Bernd Lange, MEP (SPD)

Although Bernd Lange, who is the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on In- ternational Trade, does not officially support anti-TTIP campaign networks, he is a declared member of several organisations that are official members of Germany’s anti-TTIP campaign networks such as “Stopp TTIP” and “TTIPunfairhandelar” (Lange is also a member of the Ger- man Metal Workers Union and Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature Germany)). In addition, Lange, who is a professional teacher of religious education, maintains contact with several clerical organisations in Germany, of which some sweepingly reject TTIP. Bernd Lange is generally highly critical to ISDS provisions in CETA and TTIP.

Although Lange does not oppose TTIP, he is exposed to prominent views of anti-TTIP interest groups – beyond the high number of critics within the Social Democratic Party (the “Parlia- mentary Left” of the SPD in particular, as discussed below). Accordingly, Lange does neither officially support TTIP, nor does he officially reject the trade agreement. In a recent interview, he conceded that TTIP is likely to fail due to public opinion.15 In another clarification, however, Bernd Lange defended the democratic legitimacy of EU trade policy making by denouncing those political campaigns that aim to undermine the legitimacy of European institutions and European treaties with respect to the EU’s competences in trade policymaking.16

15 See interview from 14 July 2016, http://www.vorwaerts.de/artikel/bernd-lange-freihandel-ceta-ttip-unterschei- det, accessed on 8 August 2016. 16 See personal web presence of Bernd Lange, http://www.bernd-lange.de/aktuell/nachrichten/2016/370742.php, accessed on 8 August 2016.

54 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Box 1: “Campact”, “Stop(p) TTIP” and “TTIPunfairhandelbar”

Campact is a professional campaign group that was initially funded (in 2004) by advocates of the anti-globalisation, anti-corporate Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and Citi- zen’s Action (attac Germany). It originally initiated and still coordinates the anti-TTIP protest scene in Germany including anti-TTIP campaigns “TTIPunfairhandelbar” and “Stopp TTIP”.

Campact had previously engaged in multi-year campaigns against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), fracking and national provisions concerning the retention of personal data. Thus, TTIP provided an excellent complement to the organisation’s campaign portfolio. In autumn 2013, Cam- pact officials forged an alliance that was primarily supported by agricultural and environmental organisations and civil rights, pro-democracy campaign groups (FAZ 2015; TTIP Unfairhandelbar 2015).

“TTIPunfairhandelbar” emerged in spring 2013 – right after the official announcement of the Eu- ropean Council to envisage opening negotiations in Summer 2013. From the beginning, the protest initiative’s prime concern was to stop TTIP negotiations by means of forcefully orchestrated collective action. In organising collective campaigns, Campact was initially primarily supported by the following groups:

- attac Germany, - Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft e.V. (association of small-scale farmers), - Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Berlin-based platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on environmental and development policies, official coordination centre of anti-TTIP initiatives), - PowerShift e.V. and - Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. (BUND) – Friends of the Earth Germany

On 1 November 2013, “Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung” set up the official coordination center of “TTIPunfairhandelbar”, which, according to the accountability report of the umbrella organisation of German environmental organisations (Deutscher Naturschutzring), was directly financed by Ger- many’s SPD-led Federal Ministry for the Environment (DNR 2013, pp. 20 and 21).

In spring 2014, Germany’s major anti-TTIP activists decided to set up an EU-wide protest campaign against TTIP, “Stop(p) TTIP”. Founding members were:

- attac Germany, - Campact, - the European Network of attac, - the „Seattle to Brussels Network” and - “Friends of the Earth Europe”, including BUND Germany.

Campact administers several online and on-the-ground campaigns, and distributes financial funds to a number of network organisations to reach out to group-specific circles of supporters. Campact claims to be financially funded by individual donor’s contributions that do not exceed the amount of 5,000 Euros. However, individual donors are allowed to split contributions. In 2014, Campact’s annual budget was 5.6 million Euros. In 2015, Campact’s annual budget increased to 7 million Euros. In 2015, more than 50 percent of Campact’s campaign funding was spent on anti-TTIP, anti-CETA and anti-TiSA campaign work. The environmental group “Naturfreunde e.V.” (Friends of Nature, socialist by its statues, led by Uwe Hiksch, speaker of the Marxist Forum of DIE LINKE) was the greatest official beneficiary of Campact’s external anti-TTIP campaign funding. This group alone received more than 250,000 Euros to set up anti-TTIP demonstrations in Berlin in 2015 (Campact 2015; 2016).

In addition, Campact financed several declared anti-TTIP-organisations in Europe. It provided financial grants to PROGRESSI (Italy: 50,000 Euros), Skiftet (Sweden: 70,000 Euros), Uplift (Ire- land: 50,000 Euros), Aufstehn (Austria: 25,000 Euros), and Fundacja Akcja Demokracja (Poland: 25,000 Euros). Campact also provided funding to ActionStation (New Zealand: 50,000 Euros) and GetUp (Australia: 41,069 Euros) to set up campaigns against TPP, the Transpacific Partnership Agreement (see Campact 2016).

55 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

TABLE 5: TTIP-RELATED COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS OF BERND LANGE

We must put off our plans on TTIP (TTIP muss auf Eis gelegt 11 August 2016: werden)17

S&D group rejects ISDS. Welcome. (#S&D Fraktion im #EP, heute 4 March 2015: Beschluss: Klare Kante gegen #ISDS in Handelsverträgen, gut!)18

(CETA: Nachverhandlungen sind möglich! 2 December 2014 TTIP: Investorenschutzklauseln mit USA sind nicht tragbar!)19

Sven Giegold, MEP (GRUENE)

Sven Giegold, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (EFA), turns out to be a figurehead of Germany’s anti-TTIP protest scene and one of its key backers. Giegold is affiliated with the anti-TTIP campaign network’s most influential groups. Giegold is:

- a co-founder of attac Germany, Germany’s most prolific activist group in anti-TTIP protest, - a long-standing advisor to the advisory board of attac, - a trainer and advisor to attac’s “red summer academy” (together with University of Bielefeld’s Andreas Fisahn, who is another top 50 speaker on TTIP in Germany),20 - an advisor to Campact, Germany’s leading professional campaign organisation, which was founded by attac members in 2004 (Campact is the anti-TTIP movement’s control centre of online and on-the-ground campaigns and petitions in Germany, see Box 1), - a former BUND representative to attac (BUND is the most influential environmental organisation, a key “environmental” player in anti-TTIP protests in Germany, and host of the activists’ web page ttipcheck.eu), - an advisor to the Evangelical Churches in Germany, - a member and advisor to the German institute “Green Budget Germany” (together with Jürgen Maier, another top 50 TTIP speaker) - a founding member of the “Institut Solidarische Moderne” (institute promoting a solidary future, together with top 50 TTIP speakers Karl Bär, Nina Scheer, Hilde Mattheis), - a member of the State Association of GRUENE North Rhine-Westphalia, of which two more prominent speakers are in the list of top 50 speakers on TTIP in Germany (Stefan Engstfeld and Ernst-Christoph Stolper).

Sven Giegold strongly rejects TTIP and wants the negotiations to be stopped. Rejecting the clarifications of the European Commission, Giegold repeatedly argued (see, e.g., Table 1 below) that TTIP drives down consumer and environmental protection standards, threatens democracy and exposes public services to unjustified competitive pressures. Giegold also doubts the democratic

17 See article “Lange: TTIP muss auf Eis gelegt werden”, http://m.haz.de/Hannover/Aus-der-Region/Burgdorf/Na- chrichten/Europaabgeordneter-Bernd-Lange-glaubt-nicht-mehr-an-ein-Handelsabkommen-der-EU-mit-den-U- SA, accessed on 11 August 2016. 18 Tweet of @Bernd Lange, 4 March 2015. 19 Tweet of @Bernd Lange, 2 December 2014. 20 See information on attac Germany’s “Summer academy”, http://www.attac.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Kampa- gnen/sommerakademie/Programm_SoAk2016_web.pdf, accessed on 11 August 2016.

56 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

legitimacy of EU institutions in trade and economic policymaking. His positions are congruent with those propagated by Germany’s most active anti-TTIP organisations, particularly those spread by Campact, a professional progressive anti-TTIP advocacy group and political campaign platform that was founded by members of attac Germany. Giegold frequently intermediates between attac, Campact and the Green party of Germany. In April 2016, Giegold promoted a protest letter sent by Campact officials to all state associations of Germany’s Green party calling them to vigorously reject CETA, the trade and investment agreement between the EU and Canada.

TABLE 6: TTIP-RELATED COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS OF SVEN GIEGOLD

Great letter of Campact - Let’s stop CETA in the Federal Council of Germany. (Star- 18 April 2016 ker Brief von @Campact! Lasst uns #CETA über den Bundesrat stoppen!)21 Obama and Merkel in Hannover. Our welcome message: Stop TTIP. (Obama & 9 March 2016 Merkel kommen nach Hannover! Unsere Willkommensbotschaft: #TTIP & #CETA stoppen! http://ttip-demo.de/home/aufruf/)22 Clear message to SME’s: ISDS-reform is spoof (Klare Ansage von Mittelständler: 20 November 2015 Reform der #TTIP-Schiedsgerichte ist nur ein Bluff)23 Campact exposes Gabriel. Campact replies to Gabriel’s news ads. (Campact ent- 16 October 2015 larvt Gabriel! Bürgerbewegung @campact schaltet heute eine Replik auf Gabriels pro-#TTIP-Zeitungsanzeigen)24 Gabriel’s news ads: Miserable. Gabriel does not discuss with citizens. (Erbärmlich! 10 October 2015 Statt mit Bürgern in Berlin zu diskutieren, schaltet Gabriel Anzeigen für #TTIP!)25 Democracy has lost control over businesses. Who is going to set standards? Mon- 22 September 2015 santo, Deutsche Bank and other Multinationals? Or is it citizens and parliaments?26 New opposition to TTIP. SME’s now mobilise against TTIP. (Gegenwind für #TTIP 1 September 2015 nimmt weiter zu: Mittelstand in Deutschland mobilisiert jetzt gegen TTIP. http:// www.kmu-gegen-ttip.de/)27 Something Gabriel does not like. Labour unions increase efforts to mobilise against 30 August 2015 TTIP. (Das wird Sigmar Gabriel gar nicht gefallen: Die Mobilisierung in den Gewerk- schaften zur großen #TTIP-Demo am 10.10. läuft auf Hochtouren!)28 TTIP deprives our democracy of control over social and environmental standards in 10 March 2014 the Single Market (TTIP droht der Demokratie die soziale und ökologische Kontrolle über den Binnenmarkt zu entziehen.)29

2. Members of the State Association of GRUENE North Rhine-Westphalia are particularly offensive in propagating anti-TTIP views and keep close contacts to Campact – Germany’s central anti-TTIP campaign coordination platform.

21 Tweet of @sven_giegold, 18 April 2016. 22 Tweet of @sven_giegold, 9 March 2016. 23 Tweet of @sven_giegold, 20 November 2015. 24 Tweet of @sven_giegold, 16 October 2015. 25 Tweet of @sven_giegold, 10 October 2015. 26 See speech on anti-TTIP demonstration in Munster on 22 September 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?- v=mja2Vmm8Vdo, accessed on 11 August 2016. 27 Tweet of @sven_giegold, 1 September 2015. 28 Tweet of @sven_giegold, 30 August 2015. 29 See article of 10 March 2014, http://www.euractiv.de/section/gesundheit-und-verbraucherschutz/news/gru- nen-leak-ttip-bedroht-demokratie-in-europa/, accessed on 11 August 2016.

57 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Sven Giegold, Stefan Engstfeld, Ernst-Christoph Stolper and (formerly) Jürgen Maier are four of Germany’s top 20 speakers on TTIP, and are affiliated with the Green (GRUENE) party’s state association of North Rhine Westphalia, a group that is highly active in shaping the debate about TTIP in and beyond North Rhine-Westphalia, with long-standing connections to several anti-TTIP civil society organisations.

In addition to Sven Giegold, who can be regarded as long-established, well-connected interface between Green party officials and several leading officials of the hard core of anti-TTIP organisations in Germany, Ernst-Christoph Stolper and Stefan Engstfeld promote anti-TTIP sentiments within, and beyond, Green party rows. Engstfeld, who is vice chairman of the Greens in North Rhine Westphalia and affiliated with the public media authority of North Rhine-Westphalia, actively promotes Germany’s “Stop(p) TTIP” movement. He is also a signatory of a letter to Campact in which he meets the request of Campact to encourage Green party politicians to protest against TTIP.30

Ernst-Christoph Stolper, who is a former state secretary of Rhineland-Palatinate’s Ministry of Economic Affairs, now serves as environmental organisation BUND’s official TTIP expert. As a coordinator and speaker of “TTIPunfairhandelbar”, Stolper keeps close contacts to Germa- ny’s leading anti-TTIP organisations including attac Germany, the Confederation of German Labour Unions and Germany’s well-organised cultural industry representatives. Stolper is a declared supporter of extra-parliamentary opposition and his comments are frequently been taken up on Campact’s web presence.31

3. Beyond the State Association of GRUENE North Rhine-Westphalia, several politicians of Germany’s Green party are highly active in Germany’s anti-TTIP scene. In addition, Green party affiliated directors and campaign managers of influential environmental organisations provide the resources for professional campaign work, i.e. the provision of innovative messages and the activation of members to engage in online forums and to vote in (online) petitions.

11 of Germany’s top 50 speakers on TTIP are affiliated with Germany’s Green party (GRUENE):

- 3 top 50 TTIP speakers represent GRUENE in the European Parliament, - 2 top 50 speakers represent GRUENE in the German Bundestag, - 5 top 50 speakers are leading managers of well-connected environmental organisations and Brot für die Welt (a popular Aid Organisation of Germany’s Evangelical/Protestant Church) - 1 of top 50 TTIP speakers represent GRUENE in the State Parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia.

All of these individuals strictly reject CETA, TTIP and TiSA. It should be noted that all core civil society organisations associated with the Green party GRUENE are partly financed through tax revenues including the campaign initiative “TTIPunfairhandelbar” (see DNR 2013) – irrespective of issues related to democratic legitimacy, the degree of transparency and democratic accountability. A detailed overview of institutional linkages is given below. Green party GRUENE Members of the European Parliament:

- Sven Giegold: State Association of GRUENE North Rhine-Westphalia (together with top 50 TTIP speakers Stefan Engstfeld and Ernst-Christoph Stolper); co-founder of attac Ger-

30 See letter sent by the State Association of the Green party North Rhine-Westphalia to Campact of 22 April 2016, http://www.sven-giegold.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AntwortschreibenCampact.pdf, accessed on 8 August 2016. 31 See interview from 15 September 2015, https://www.freitag.de/autoren/der-freitag/back-to-the-roots-1, accessed on 8 August 2016.

58 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

many (which is, amongst others, supported by prominent anti-TTIP groups ver.di, GEW, BUND, Naturfreunde, Pax Christi, Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft, and various individuals such as Andrea Nahles (the SPD’s current Minister for Labour and Social Affairs and member of the German government); Long-standing advisor to the advisory board of attac Germany; Advisor to Campact; former representative of environmental group BUND to attac Germany; member and advisor to the German institute “Green Budget Ger- many” (together with top 50 TTIP speaker and lead campaign coordinator Jürgen Maier of Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung); member of ver.di (United Services Union); member of Mehr Demokratie (together with top TTIP speakers Sarah Händel, Alexander Trennhäuser, Roman Huber); member of steering board of German Evangelical Church Conference; advisor to German Ecumenical Church; founding member of the “Institut Solidarische Mod- erne” (institute promoting a solidary future, together with top 50 TTIP speakers Karl Bär, Nina Scheer, Hilde Mattheis)

- Maria Heubuch: member of AbL Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerlicher Land-wirtschaft (As- sociation of smallholder farmers); member of Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter (German Association of Dairy Farmers)

- Martin Häusling: organic farmer and member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Green party GRUENE Members of the Germany Federal Parliament (Bundestag):

- Uwe Kekeritz: development Policy Spokesman of GRUENE party Germany, member of attac Germany, member of ver.di (United Services Unions)

- Harald Ebner: member of NABU (Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union Germany)

Green party GRUENE Members of Environmental and Christian Clerical Organisations:

- Karl Bär: Umweltinstitut München e.V. (Munich-based NGO promoting ecologic policies and sustainable agriculture); founding member of the “Institut Solidarische Moderne” (institute promoting a solidary future, together with Sven Giegold, Nina Scheer, Hilde Mattheis)

- Ernst-Christoph Stolper: Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V. (BUND, German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation); state Association of GRUENE North Rhine-Westphalia (Sven Giegold and Stefan Engstfeld); official coordinator/speaker of campaign group “TTIPunfairhandelbar”

- Jürgen Maier: Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Berlin-based platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development, coordination centre of anti-TTIP initiative ‘TTIPunfairhandelbar’); Green Party (GRUENE) member of the federal executive board of GRUNE 1987-1991); affiliated with Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung steering board member and top 50 TTIP speaker Sven Hilbig who represents Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Church); chief coordinator of most declared anti-TTIP protest groups that are active members of Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung and “TTIPunfairhandelbar” (which was directly funded by the SPD party-led Federal Ministry of the Environment, see DNR 2013 pp. 20 and 21)

- Christian Hirneis: Managing Director at Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V. (BUND, German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation); member of steering board of BUND Bavaria

59 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

- Sven Hilbig: Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Church); former staff of Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, the political foundation of GRUENE; member of Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Berlin-based platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development, coordination centre of anti-TTIP initiative ‘TTIPunfairhandelbar’)

4. Politicians of Germany’s left-wing party DIE LINKE run a forceful anti-TTIP campaign that is based on stringent anti-corporate, anti-globalisation doctrines. In search for broader public support, left-wing party representatives utilise personal connections to labour unions, environmental organisations and Germany’s political Commu- nist-Marxist scene.

Six politicians of Germany’s far left-wing party DIE LINKE are among Germany’s top 50 speakers on TTIP. Fabio di Masi is the the party’s most active speaker on TTIP. Di Masi is a Member of the European Parliament, a member of the State Association of the left-wing party in North Rhine-Westphalia, a former staff member of Sarah Wagenknecht (the current deputy chairper- son of DIE LINKE), and affiliated with the United Services Union ver.di, which is a declared member organisation to Germany’s anti-TTIP campaign network. Di Masi is well-connected with the anti-TTIP scene in North Rhine Westphalia. Based on fundamental opposition and forceful messages, Di Masi strictly rejects TTIP.

Klaus Ernst, a Member of the German Bundestag and former secretary at the German Metal Workers Union is another prominent speaker on TTIP, utilising his strong personal contacts with officials of German labour unions. Christa Luft, a former official of Eastern Germany’s SED (Socialist Unity Party of Germany) and former Member of the German Bundestag (member of PDS, a successor of SED and predecessor of Die LINKE), is the anti-TTIP voice of Rosa Lux- emburg Foundation, the political foundation of Germany’s far left-wing party.

Another prominent speaker of Germany’s left-wing party DIE LINKE is Uwe Hiksch, who, in his capacity as expert on TTIP, exclusively represents Germany’s environment organisation Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature). It should be noted, however, that Uwe Hiksch, who is a former Member of the German Bundestag (representing the Social Democrats), is the leading figure of the Marxist Forum of DIE LINKE, which was classified as anti-constitutional by two administrative courts in 2009. The Marxist Forum promotes dialectical methods to promote communist and Marxist thoughts in society.32

5. The majority of top 50 speakers on TTIP that are affiliated with Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) strongly reject TTIP. The SPD’s anti-TTIP speakers are well-connected with labour unions and leading figures in the SPD’s influential left- wing groups: the “Parliamentarian Left” and the SPD’s “Forum Democratic Left 21”.

Following Bernd Lange, SPD’s Maria Noichl, a Member of the European Parliament, is the SPD’s most active speaker against TTIP. Noichl, who represents the Bavarian constituency of Rosenheim, is a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Noichl, who calls to stop “TTIP, CETA and TiSA madness”, is affiliated with the Stop-TTIP-Munich initiative.33 SPD’s Joachim Schuster, another Social Democratic Member of the European Parliament, is also a leading voice of the SPD in the TTIP debate. Schuster is more moderate and less belligerent in voicing criticism over TTIP, but generally rejects investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses within the trade agreement.

32 See web presence of the Marxist Forum of the party DIE LINKE, https://www.die-linke.de/partei/weitere-strukturen/weitere-zusammenschluesse/marxistisches-forum/, accessed on 8 August 2016. 33 See speech of Maria Noichl at “Bavaria Stops CETA” demonstration on 16 July 2016, http://stop-ttip-muenchen. de/rede-von-maria-noichl-mdep-spd-zum-globalen-aktionstag-gegen-ttip-am-18-april-2015-in-muenchen/, accessed on 8 August 2016.

60 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Hans-Jürgen Blinn, a politician of Germany’s SPD and Federal Commissioner for Cultural Af- fairs in the Trade Policy Committee of the European Council (services and investments), strongly rejects TTIP. Blinn, who is also affiliated with the “German Cultural Council” (Deutscher Kulturrat, one of Germany’s leading declared anti-TTIP protest organisations), argues that TTIP would manifest market rationalities, and therefore threatens Germany’s cultural sector.34

In addition to Maria Noichl, SPD’s Nina Scheer and Hilde Mattheis are the SPD’s most belligerent critics of TTIP and other trade agreements. Both politicians officially support several declared anti-TTIP organisations on Germany. Nina Scheer is a member of Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature) and the former head of “Unternehmensgrün e.V. (a German association of “green” businesses and declared anti-TTIP organisation). Hilde Mattheis is member of three declared anti-TTIP protest groups: Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature), Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V. (BUND, German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation) and Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (GEW, Union for Education and Science).

Both Scheer and Mattheis are members of the Parliamentarian Left of SPD (Parlamenta- rische Linke der SPD). Moreover, Hilde Mattheis is founder and speaker of SPD’s Forum Demokratische Linke 21 (Forum of Democratic Left 21). The forum promotes progressive, far left-wing ideologies that are not shared by the majority of the SPD party base. Hilde Mattheis is also a founding member of the “Institut Solidarische Moderne” (institute promoting a solidary future, together with top 50 TTIP speakers Sven Giegold, Nina Scheer and Karl Bär). Dirk Hierschel, a former economist of Germany’s Confederation of Labour Unions (DGB), current head of economic policy of Germany’s United Services Union ver.di and one of Germany’s top 50 speakers on TTIP, is a board member of the SPD’s Forum Demokratische Linke 21.

Although SPD’s Andrea Nahles does not appear in the list of top 50 speakers on TTIP in Germa- ny, it is noteworthy that she is a member of attac Germany, one of Germany’s leading anti-TTIP campaign organisations. Nahles is the SPD’s current Minister for Labour and Social Affairs and a member of the German CDU/CSU/SPD coalition government.

6. Four of Germany’s top 50 speakers on TTIP are founding members of the “Institut Sol- idarische Moderne” (institute promoting a solidary future), a political green and left- wing cross-party organisation aiming to increase the societal recognition, acceptability and collective action in promoting left-wing ideologies. The organisation’s network includes individuals of educational institutions, academia, cultural organisations and public institutions.

Four of Germany’s anti-TTIP movement’s most active figures, Sven Giegold (GRUENE), Karl Bär (Umweltinstitut München e. V. and GRUENE), Hilde Mattheis and Nina Scheer (Parlamentarian Left of SPD), who are fierce opponents of TTIP, are founding members of the “Institut Solidarische Moderne” (ISM, institute promoting a solidary future). The purpose of the organisation is to promote ideas and collective action in combating “unbridled capitalism”.35 The organisation connects politicians of Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD), Green (GRUENE) and left-wing (DIE LINKE) parties, and offers a platform for a great number of political left-wing academics (primarily political scientists, social scientist and historians) and representatives of cultural and several public institutions.

34 See, e.g., article TTIP: Freihandelsexperte spricht im Beruflichen Schulzentrum http://www.swp.de/bietigheim/ lokales/bietigheim_bissingen/ttip_-freihandelsexperte-spricht-im-beruflichen-schulzentrum-11775084.html, accessed on 8 August 2016. 35 See web presence of the “Institut Solidarische Moderne”, https://www.solidarische-moderne.de/de/topic/144. ziele-aufgaben-projekte.html, accessed on 9 August 2016.

61 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 30: TOP 50 TTIP EXPERTS IN GERMANY AND INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Full Network of Speakers by Institution

GRUENE (Greens Party of Germany) attac Deutschland (attac Germany) SPD (Social Democratice Party of Germany) Christian Churches Germany DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party of Germany) EFA Group in European Parliament Katholische Arbeiterbewegung (KAB, Catholic Labour Movement) Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (Rosa Luxembourg Foundation)

Marxistisches Forum der Partei DIE LINKE (Marxist Forum of DIE LINKE) Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V. (BUND, German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation)

Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature) Bernd Lange, MdEP, MEP (1) Markus Ferber, MdEP, MEP (26) ÖDP (Ecologic Democratic Party of Germany) Sven Giegold, MdEP, MEP (2) Publik-Forum (German magazine covering Christian, religious and societal issues) Martin Häusling, MdEP, MEP (27) Jacob Schrot (3) Alexander Graf Lambsdor, MdEP, MEP (28) Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development, coordination center of anti-TTIP initiative 'TTIPunfairhandelbar') Klaus Buchner, MEP (4) Maria Heubuch, MdEP, MEP (29) Sarah Händel (5) Greenpeace Deutschland (Greenpeace Germany) Deutscher Kulturrat (German Cultural Council) DIE ZEIT (national weekly newspaper published in the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg) John B. Emerson (30) Maria Noichl, MdEP, MEP (6) Mehr Demokratie e.V. (German NGO promoting democracy and stronger citizen participation) Heinz Hetmeier (31) Daniel Caspary, MdEP, MEP (7) DGB (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, Confederation of German Trade Unions) William E. Moeller (32) Uwe Kekeritz, MdB, MP (8) foodwatch e.V. (Organisation that focuses on protecting consumer rights as they pertain to food quality) German Metal Workers Union Universität Bielefeld (University of Bielefeld) Lutz Güllner (33) Hans-Jürgen Blinn (9) ver.di (United Services Union) Klaus Ernst, MdB, MP (34) Joachim Schuster, MdEP, MEP (10) PowerShift e.V. (Verein für eine ökologisch-solidarische Energie- & Weltwirtschaft e.V., Berlin-based NGO promoting ecologic and solidary economy) Christa Luft (35) Karl Bär (11) Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (University of Erlangen-Nürnberg) Maja Volland (36) Andreas Povel (12) Umweltinstitut München e.V. (Munich-based NGO promoting ecologic policies and sustainable agriculture) Uwe Hiksch (37) Fabio De Masi, MdEP, MEP (13) Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Church) Andreas Fisahn (38) Stefan Engstfeld, MdL (14) Ralf Welter (39) Ernst-Christoph Stolper (15) Petra Pinzler (40) Jürgen Maier (16) Nina Scheer, MdB, MP (41) Alexander Trennheuser (17) Anti-TTIP-Bündnis (Formal Anti-TTIP Alliance - "Stopp TTIP" & "TTIPunfairhandelbar") Dirk Wiese, MdB, MP (42) Wolfgang Kessler (18) Olaf Zimmermann (43) Roman Huber (19) Bertram Brossardt (44) Verbraucherzentrale Niedersachsen (Consumer Advice Center) Harald Ebner, MdB, MP (20) Initiative Junger Transatlantiker (Young Transatlantic Initiative) Helmut Scholz, MdEP, MEP (45) ilo Bode (21) Hilde Mattheis (46) BDI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, Federation of German Industry) Christian Hirneis (22) US-Botschaft in Deutschland (US Embassy in Germany) Markus Krajewski (47) AmCham (Amerikanische Handelskammer, American Chamber of Commerce) Stormy-Annika Mildner (23) Steen Stierle (48) Bundesministrerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi, Federal Ministry for Economic Aairs and Energy) Lukas Bläsius (24) Dierk Hirschel (49) Europäische Kommission (European Commission) Verband der Bayrischen Wirtschaft (vdb, Association of Bavarian Businesses) omas Fritz (25) Sven Hilbig (50) GEW (Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft, Union for Education and Science) CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) CSU (Christian Social Union) FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei, Free Democratic Party, classical liberal party in Germany)

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: numbers in brackets represent rank in number of public appearances as speakers on TTIP panels between February 2015 and February 2016.

62 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 31: ANTI-TTIP CAMPAIGN GROUPS’ SPEAKERS (AMONG TOP 50 SPEAKERS IN GERMANY) AND INSTUTIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Full Network of Speakers by Anti-TTIP Institution

GRUENE (Greens Party of Germany) attac Deutschland (attac Germany) SPD (Social Democratice Party of Germany) Christian Churches Germany DIE LINKE (Left-wing Party of Germany)

EFA Group in European Parliament Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (Rosa Luxembourg Foundation) Katholische Arbeiterbewegung (KAB, Catholic Labour Movement)

Marxistisches Forum der Partei DIE LINKE (Marxist Forum of DIE LINKE) Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V. (BUND, German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation)

Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature) Bernd Lange, MdEP, MEP (1) ÖDP (Ecologic Democratic Party of Germany) Sven Giegold, MdEP, MEP (2) Publik-Forum (German magazine covering Christian, religious and societal issues) Martin Häusling, MdEP, MEP (27)

Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development, coordination center of anti-TTIP initiative 'TTIPunfairhandelbar') Klaus Buchner, MEP (4) Maria Heubuch, MdEP, MEP (29) Sarah Händel (5) Greenpeace Deutschland (Greenpeace Germany) DIE ZEIT (national weekly newspaper published in the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg) Deutscher Kulturrat (German Cultural Council) Maria Noichl, MdEP, MEP (6) Mehr Demokratie e.V. (German NGO promoting democracy and stronger citizen participation) DGB (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, Confederation of German Trade Unions)

Uwe Kekeritz, MdB, MP (8) foodwatch e.V. (Organisation that focuses on protecting consumer rights as they pertain to food quality) German Metal Workers Union Universität Bielefeld (University of Bielefeld) Hans-Jürgen Blinn (9) ver.di (United Services Union) Klaus Ernst, MdB, MP (34) Joachim Schuster, MdEP, MEP (10) PowerShift e.V. (Verein für eine ökologisch-solidarische Energie- & Weltwirtschaft e.V., Berlin-based NGO promoting ecologic and solidary economy) Christa Luft (35) Karl Bär (11) Umweltinstitut München e.V. (Munich-based NGO promoting ecologic policies and sustainable agriculture) Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (University of Erlangen-Nürnberg) Maja Volland (36) Uwe Hiksch (37) Fabio De Masi, MdEP, MEP (13) Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Church) Andreas Fisahn (38) Stefan Engstfeld, MdL (14) Ralf Welter (39) Ernst-Christoph Stolper (15) Petra Pinzler (40) Jürgen Maier (16) Nina Scheer, MdB, MP (41) Alexander Trennheuser (17) Anti-TTIP-Bündnis (Formal Anti-TTIP Alliance - "Stopp TTIP" & "TTIPunfairhandelbar") Wolfgang Kessler (18) Olaf Zimmermann (43) Roman Huber (19)

Verbraucherzentrale Niedersachsen (Consumer Advice Center) Harald Ebner, MdB, MP (20) Initiative Junger Transatlantiker (Young Transatlantic Initiative) Helmut Scholz, MdEP, MEP (45) ilo Bode (21) Hilde Mattheis (46) BDI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, Federation of German Industry) Christian Hirneis (22) US-Botschaft in Deutschland (US Embassy in Germany) AmCham (Amerikanische Handelskammer, American Chamber of Commerce) Steen Stierle (48) Bundesministrerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi, Federal Ministry for Economic Aairs and Energy) Lukas Bläsius (24) Dierk Hirschel (49) Europäische Kommission (European Commission) Verband der Bayrischen Wirtschaft (vdb, Association of Bavarian Businesses) omas Fritz (25) Sven Hilbig (50) GEW (Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft, Union for Education and Science) CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) CSU (Christian Social Union) FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei, Free Democratic Party, classical liberal party in Germany) Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: numbers in brackets represent rank in number of public appearances as speakers on TTIP panels between February 2015 and February 2016. Note that Bernd Lange does not officially support anti-TTIP protest organisations, but is a declared member of several organisations that are declared members of anti-TTIP campaign networks (i.e. the German Metal Workers Union and Naturfreunde (Friends of Nature Germany). Besides, Bernd Lange, who is a trained teacher for religious education, is affiliated with several clerical organisations in Germany. 63 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

6.5.3. ANTI-TTIP INFLUENCER INDEX

Data of the number of public appearances, information of political party affiliation and information about affiliations with anti-TTIP institutions have been combined to calculate an “anti-TTIP influencer index”. By doing so, we aim to depict those individuals that, on the one hand, have political power and a high degree of potential influence within Germany’s political parties and, on the other hand, are well-connected in the anti-TTIP scene in Germany. Ac- cordingly, each individual’s final index score is based on the aggregation of 3 sub-indices. The methodology of aggregation is outlined in Box 2 below. It should be noted, however, that some individuals have a greater exposure to journalists and (mass) media than others, which is why these numbers should be interpreted with caution. In addition, the journalist Petra Pinzler, a profound critic of TTIP, TiSA and CETA and supporter of the campaign TTIPunfairhandelbar, certainly has a greater impact on public opinion in Germany than most other individuals covered by this analyisis. Box 2: Methodological Considerations “Anti-TTIP Influencer Index”

Each individual’s final index score is based on the aggregation of 3 sub-indices:

- Sub-index 1: number of anti-TTIP speakers’ public appearances divided by maximum number of appearances (=Bernd Lange: 46)36

- Sub-Index 2: Number of relations to official anti-TTIP protest groups divided by maximum number of declared relations with declared anti-TTIP organisations (= Sven Giegold: 5)

- Sub-Index 3: Current or former Member of National Parliament, Member of State Parliament or Member of European Parliament = 1 and 0 otherwise

- Index weights: Sub-Index 1= 0.4, Sub-Index 2= 0.4, Sub-Index 3= 0.2

Figure 32 depicts the score of the aggregated “anti-TTIP influencer index”. Germany’s Greens Party GRUENE Member of the European Parliament Sven Giegold ranks first. Sven Giegold holds a formal political mandate and is a declared member of 5 declared anti-TTIP organisations (Table 4). Germany’s Social Democrat Bernd Lange ranks second. Although Lange does not officially support anti-TTIP protest organisations, he is a declared member of several organisations that are official members of anti-TTIP campaign initiatives (i.e. the German Metal Workers Union and Naturfreunde (Friends of Nature Germany). Besides, Lange is affiliated with several clerical organisations in Germany, of which some strictly reject TTIP. Germany’s Green Party member Uwe Kekeritz ranks third. Kekeritz is a Member of the German Bundestag and a declared member of three declared anti-TTIP campaign organisations.

The index values reveal that Germany’s top political influencers share green/environmental or far-left wing ideas and associated political ideologies. 6 of Germany’s 17 most influential politicians are members of German Greens party GRUENE (plus one representative of Germany’s Ecologic Democratic Party ÖDP). 5 of Germany’s most influential politicians represent German far left-wing party DIE LINKE. 4 of Germany’s most influential politicians represent the left- wing of Germany’s Social Democratic Party SPD. Moreover, 5 of Germany’s top anti-TTIP influencers that represent civil society organisations are members of Germany’s Green party GRUENE. 3 speakers represent pro-democracy groups. Another 3 top-influencers represent anti-globalisation, anti-corporate group attac Germany, and a further 2 influencers represent Ger- many’s Cultural Council (Deutscher Kulturrat), labour unions (DGB and ver.di) and Christian clerical institutions respectively.

36 Note that Bernd Lange does not officially support anti-TTIP protest organisations, but is a declared member of several organisations that are declared members of anti-TTIP campaign networks (i.e. the German Metal Workers Union and Naturfreunde (Friends of Nature Germany). Besides, Bernd Lange, who is a professional teacher for religious thought, is affiliated with several clerical organisations in Germany of which some strongly reject TTIP.

64 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 32: ANTI-TTIP INFLUENCER INDEX

Sven Giegold, MdEP,Sven MEP Giegold, (GRUENE, MdEP, Greens) MEP 0.85 (GRUENE, Greens)

Bernd Lange, MdEP, MEPBernd (SPD, Lange, Social MdEP, Democrats) MEP 0.76 (SPD, Social Democrats) Uwe Kekeritz, MdB, MP Uwe Kekeritz, MdB, MP (GRUENE,(GRUENE, Greens) Green) 0.56

Maria Noichl, MdEP, MEP Maria Noichl, MdEP, MEP (SPD, Social Democrats) 0.53 (SPD, Social Democrats)

MariaMaria Heubuch, Heubuch, MsEP, MdEP, MEP MEP (GRUENE, (GRUENE, Greens) 0.51

Uwe Hiksch (Naturfreunde, MarxistischesUwe Hiksch Forum (Naturfreunde, DIE LINKE, Friends Marxistische of Nature, ForumMarxist 0.50 DIE LINKE,Forum) Friends of Nature, Marxist Forum)

Hilde Mattheis, MdB, MPHilde (SPD, Mattheis, Social Democrats) MdB, MP, 0.49 SPD, Social Democrat)

Klaus Buchner, MEP (ÖDP, EcologicalKlaus Democratic Buchner, Party)MEP 0.47 (ÖDP, Ecological Democratic Party) Fabio De Masi, MdEP, MEP Fabio De Masi, MdEP, MEP(DIE (DIE LINKE, LINKE, Left-wing Left-wing Party)Party) 0.46

Harald Ebner, MdB, MP Harald Ebner,(DIE MdB, LINKE, MP (GRUENE, Left-wing Greens) Party) 0.45

Klaus Ernst, MdB, MP Klaus Ernst, MdB, MP(DIE (DIE LINKE, LINKE, Left-wing Left-wing Party)Party) 0.43

Nina Scheer, MdB, MP Nina Scheer, MdB, MP(SPD, (SPD, Social Social Democrat)Democrats) 0.42 Christa Luft (DIE LINKE, Christa Luft (DIE LINKE,Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung) Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung) 0.42

Joachim Schuster , MdEP, MEP Joachim Schuster, MdEP, MEP(SDP, (SPD, Social Social Democrats) Democrats) 0.38

Stefan Engstfeld, MdL Stefan Engstfeld, MdL(GRUENE, (GRUENE, Greens)Greens) 0.38

Martin Häusling, MdEP, MEP Martin Häusling, MdEP, MEP (GRUENE, Greens) 0.36 (GRUENE, Greens)

Helmut Scholz, MdEP, MEP Helmut Scholz, MdEP, MEP (DIE LINKE, Left-wing Party) 0.33 (DIE LINKE, Left-wing Party)

Karl Bär (GRUENE, Umweltinstitut München e.V., NGO promoting ecologic policies and Continued... 0.26 sustainable agriculture)

Jürgen Maier Forum (GRUENE, Greens, Umwelt und Entwicklung, coordination center of 0.26 anti-TTIP platform 'TTIPunfairhandelbar')

Ernst-Christoph Stolper (GRUENE, Greens, BUND, German Federation for the 0.26 Environment and Nature Conservation

Sarah Händel (Mehr Demokratie, German NGO promoting democracy and stronger 0.25 citizen participation)

Christian Hirneis (GRUENE, Greens, BUND, German Federation for the Environment 0.25 and Nature Conservation)

Thilo Bode (foodwatch) 0.25

Sven Hilbig (GRUENE, Greens, Brot für die Welt, Aid Organisation of German 0.21 Evangelical/Protestant Church)

Dierk Hirschel (ver.di, United Services Union) 0.21

Steffen Stierle (attac Deutschland, attac Germany) 65 0.21

Hans-Jürgen Blinn (SPD, Social Democrats, Ministry of Education Rhineland-Palatinate, 0.19 Germany Cultural Council)

Wolfgang Kessler (Publik-Forum, Magazine covering Christian and religious) 0.18

Alexander Trennheuser (Mehr Demokratie, German NGO promoting democracy and 0.18 stronger citizen participation)

Roman Huber (Mehr Demokratie, German NGO promoting democracy and stronger 0.17 citizen participation)

Thomas Fritz (PowerShift, NGO promoting ecologic and solidary economy) 0.16

Lukas Bläsius (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, Confederation of German Trade Unions) 0.16

Olaf Zimmermann (Deutscher Kulturrat, German Cultural Council) 0.14

Petra Pinzler (Die ZEIT, weekly magazine) 0.14

Ralf Welter (Katholische Arbeiterbewegung, Catholic Labour Movement) 0.14

Andreas Fisahn (Universität Bielefeld & attac Deutschalnd, University of Bielefeld & attac 0.14 Germany)

Maja Volland (BUND, German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation) 0.14

Markus Krajewski (Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Erlangen-Nürnberg) 0.13 Sven Giegold, MdEP, MEP (GRUENE, Greens) 0.85

Bernd Lange, MdEP, MEP (SPD, Social Democrats) 0.76

Uwe Kekeritz, MdB, MP (GRUENE, Greens) 0.56

Maria Noichl, MdEP, MEP (SPD, Social Democrats) 0.53

Maria Heubuch, MdEP, MEP (GRUENE, Greens) 0.51

Uwe Hiksch (Naturfreunde, Marxistisches Forum DIE LINKE, Friends of Nature, Marxist 0.50 Forum)

Hilde Mattheis, MdB, MP (SPD, Social Democrats) 0.49

Klaus Buchner, MEP (ÖDP, Ecological Democratic Party) 0.47

Fabio De Masi, MdEP, MEP (DIE LINKE, Left-wing Party) 0.46

Harald Ebner, MdB, MP (GRUENE, Greens) 0.45

Klaus Ernst, MdB, MP (DIE LINKE, Left-wing Party) 0.43

Nina Scheer, MdB, MP (SPD, Social Democrats) 0.42

Christa Luft (DIE LINKE, Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung) 0.42

Joachim Schuster, MdEP, MEP (SPD, Social Democrats) 0.38

Stefan Engstfeld, MdL (GRUENE, Greens) 0.38

Martin Häusling, MdEP, MEP (GRUENE, Greens) 0.36

Helmut Scholz, MdEP, MEP (DIE LINKE, Left-wing Party)ecipe occasional paper —0.33 no. 02/2016

Karl Bär (GRUENE, UmweltinstitutKarl Bär (GRUENE, München e.V.,Umweltinstitut NGO promoting München ecologic e.V.,policies NGO and 0.26 promotingsustainable ecologic agriculture) policies and sustainable architecture)

Jürgen Maier Forum (GRUENE,Jürgen Greens, Maier Umwelt Forum und (GRUENE, Entwicklung, Greens, coordination Umwelt center und of 0.26 anti Entwicklung,-TTIP platform coordination 'TTIPunfairhandelbar') center of anti-TTIP platform ‘TTIPunfairhandelbar’) Ernst-ChristophErnst-Christoph Stolper (GRUENE, Stolper Greens, (GRUENE, BUND, Greens, German BUND, Federation German for the 0.26 FederationEnvironment for the Environmentand Nature Conservation and Nature Conservation)

Sarah Händel (MehrSarah Demokratie, Händel (Mehr German Demokratie, NGO promoting German democracy NGO promotingand stronger 0.25 democracycitizen participation) and stronger citizen participation.

Christian Hirneis (GRUENE,Christian Greens, Hirneis BUND, (GRUENE, German Federation Greens, for BUND, the Environment German 0.25 Federationand for Nature the Environment Conservation) and Nature Conservation)

ThiloThilo Bode Bode (Foodwatch) (foodwatch) 0.25

Sven Hilbig (GRUENE,Sven Hilbig Greens, (GRUENE, Brot für die Greens,Welt, Aid Brot Organisation für die Welt,of German Aid 0.21 OrganisationEvangelical/Protestant of German Evangelical/ Church) Protestant Church)

Dierk HirschelDierk Hirschel (ver.di, (ver.di, United United Services Services Union) Union) 0.21

SteffenSteffen Stierle Stierle (attac (attac Deutschland, Deutschland, attacGermany) attac Germany) 0.21

Hans-JürgenHans-Jürgen Blinn (SPD, Social Blinn Democrats, (SPD, Social Ministry Democrats, of Education Ministry Rhineland of Education-Palatinate, 0.19 GermanyRhineland-Palatinate, Cultural Council) German Culture Council) Wolfgang Kessler (Publik-Forum, Magazine covering Wolfgang Kessler (Publik-Forum, Magazine covering Christian and religious) 0.18 Christianity and religion)

Alexander TrennheuserAlexander (Mehr Trennheuser Demokratie, German (Mehr NGODemokratie, promoting German democracy NGO and 0.18 promotingstronger democracy citizen participation) and stronger citizen participation)

Roman Huber Roman(Mehr Demokratie, Huber (Mehr German Demokratie, NGO promoting German democracy NGO promoting and stronger 0.17 democracycitizen participation) and stronger citizen participation)

Thomas Fritz (PowerShift, NGO promoting ecologic 0.16 Thomas Fritz (PowerShift, NGO promoting ecologicand and solidary solidary economy) economy)

Lukas Bläsius (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, Lukas Bläsius (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, Confederation of German Trade Unions) 0.16 Confederation of German Trade Unions)

Olaf Zimmermann (DeutscherOlaf Zimmermann Kulturrat, German (Deutscher Cultural Kulturrat, Council) 0.14 German Cultural Council)

Petra PinzlerPetra Pinzler (Die (Die ZEIT, ZEIT, weekly weekly magazine) magazine) 0.14

Ralf Welter (Katholische Arbeiterbewegung, Ralf Welter (Katholische Arbeiterbewegung,Catholic Catholic Labour Labour Movement Movement) 0.14

Andreas Fisahn (Universität Bielefeld & attac Deutschalnd, University of Bielefeld & attac Andreas Fisahn (Universität Bielefeld & attac Deutschland, 0.14 Germany)University of Bielefeld and attac Germany) Maja Volland (BUND, German Federation for the Maja Volland (BUND, German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation) 0.14 Environment and Nature Conservation

Markus Krajewski (Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Markus Krajewski (Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Erlangen-Nürnberg) 0.13 University of Erlangen-Nurenberg)

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note that Bernd Lange does not officially support anti-TTIP protest organisations, but is a declared member of several organisations that are declared members of anti-TTIP campaign networks (i.e. the German Metal Workers Union and Naturfreunde (Friends of Nature Germany). Besides, Bernd Lange, who is a trained teacher for religious education, is affiliated with several clerical organisations in Germany of which some strongly reject TTIP.

66 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

6.6 A GLANCE AT AUSTRIA

Previous sections have shown that public opinion about TTIP in Germany is exceptionally low, and that this is primarily the result of a single driving force: an influential anti-TTIP campaign orchestrated by well-established, well-connected politicians and professional NGO campaign managers that share a common set of “green and left-wing” ideologies. There is one country, however, where public opinion about TTIP is even worse: Austria.

According to recent survey data, 66 percent of Austrian citizens are “generally negative” towards TTIP (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). At the same time, Google search interest for mainly negative queries is highest in Austria. Similar to what took place in Germany over the past three years, both interest in TTIP and the negative picture Austrian citizens have about TTIP can be at- tributed to professional anti-TTIP campaigns run by several well-connected political groups. Thereby, the protest scene in Austria is basically a mirror image of that of Germany, with the exception that the Austrian debate is much more shaped by anti-TTIP campaign groups.

FIGURE 33: DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR GROUPS OF STAKEHOLDERS ORGANISING ON TTIP IN AUSTRIA

Individual Businesses Political Party w/o 2% Anti-TTIP Campaign Group Members 1% Business Federations 9%

Member of Anti-TTIP Campaign Group 88%

Source: ECIPE analysis. Number of registered events in Austria: 112.

For Austria, we collected data of 112 events on TTIP and TTIP-related subjects. As shown by Figure 33 and Figure 34, 88 percent of TTIP event organisers are declared members of Austria’s anti-TTIP alliance “TTIP Stoppen”. Contrary to Germany, political parties in Austria did virtu- ally nothing to support TTIP. At the same time, business’s support of TTIP is less pronounced than in Germany. Taken together, these observations explain much of the pronounced public aversion to TTIP in Austria. The public debate about TTIP in Austria is heavily biased. Highly vocal, well-organised anti-TTIP activists do not face pro-TTIP resistance. Like in Germany, anti-TTIP groups tremendously benefit from the “wait-and-see passivity” of those who are generally in favour of open markets, less critical or pro TTIP (and CETA).

67 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 34: DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR GROUPS OF STAKEHOLDERS ORGANISING ON TTIP, GERMANY VERSUS AUSTRIA

88% Member of Anti-TTIP Campaign Group 58%

Political Party w/o Anti-TTIP Campaign Group 1% Members 30%

9% Business Federations 11%

2% Individual Businesses 1%

Austria Germany

Source: ECIPE analysis. Number of registered events in Germany = 1.508. Number of registered events in Austria = 112.

FIGURE 35: AUSTRIA’S TOP “DECLARED” ANTI-TTIP CAMPAIGN NETWORK MEMBER ORGANISATIONS, BY NUMBER OF HOSTED EVENTS

attac Austria (attac Österreich) 20

Stop TTIP Austria (Stopp TTIP Österreich, ex attac) 20

Green party Austria (GRUENE Austria) 11

Catholic Labour Movement (KAB, Katholische 9 Arbeiterbewegung) Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ, 3 Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs)

Greenpeace Austria (Greenpeace Österreich) 2

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: Number of registered events for Austria = 112. Number of events organised by anti-TTIP groups = 73.

The data also show that attac is by far the leading anti-TTIP campaign group in Austria, while at the same time Austria’s Green Party is substantially less active in the debate about TTIP than Germany’s Green Party (see Figure 35). Adjusted by the size of population, the Austrian branch of attac is attac’s 2nd largest national member organisation. The “attac member” to “national population” ratio for Austria is more than 20 times larger than for Germany and more than 40 times larger than for France. Funded in 2000, attac Austria serves as a well-established platform of entrenched labour unions, various clerical (Christian, primarily Catholic) organisations and several civil society organisations.37

37 See web presence of attac Austria: http://www.attac.at/ueber-attac/unterstuetzerinnen/mitgliedsorganisationen. html, accessed on 19 August 2016.

68 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Contrary to Germany, attac’s footsteps are much more salient in the Austrian debate about TTIP. As illustrated by Figure 36, “multinational enterprises”, a traditional target of attac’s national and cross-country initiatives, is the most present topical issue addressed by TTIP events in Austria, followed by issues related to “state and democracy” and “transparency”.

Interestingly, and in contrast to the German debate, issues related to “communal and regional impact” and “public services” do not rank high on the agendas for TTIP events in Austria. Ger- man anti-TTIP groups by intention take into account differences in the federal structures of both countries. The findings therefore indicate that in Germany issues related to the impact on municipalities and municipal utilities primarily originated from the pens of Germany’s Green and Left-wing parties and associated campaign spin doctors in an attempt to “localise” TTIP-related subjects. In other words, the high number of events pretended to be related to far-reaching regional or communal consequences reflects anti-TTIP groups’ strategic calculus to deliver the complexities of a comprehensive international treaty in bite-sized pieces to local communities and, primarily, to influential local political decision makers.

FIGURE 36: TOP TTP-RELATED SUBJECTS ADDRESSED BY TTIP EVENTS IN AUSTRIA

8: MNC 15 3: State & Democracy 12 2: Transparency 8 19: Sector-specific impact 7 13: Trade and economic growth 7 4: Consumer & health protection 6 14: Jobs 5 20: Values 3 5: Environmental protection 3 12: Alternative Mandate 2 11: Fair Trade 2 1: ISDS 2 17: Investment 1 16: Innovation 1 9: SME 1 18: Communal or regional impact 0 15: Competition 0 10: Regulatory Cooperation 0 8: Private sector 0 7: Culture 0 6: Public Services 0

Source: ECIPE analysis.

69 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Box 3: The European Anti-TTIP Campaign Network “Stop TTIP”

Running office:

“Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung”:

- Berlin-based platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development -coordination centre of German anti-TTIP initiative “TTIPunfairhandelbar”, which is directly funded by Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment - coordination centre of European “Stop TTIP” movement - run by Jürgen Maier, member of the federal executive board of GRUENE (Germany’s Green Party) from 1987 to 1991

Mission Statement of “Stop TTIP” Europe:

“We are an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

Core messages:41

- Investors will be able to sue states. - Corporations will be invited to co-write new laws. - Big business has excessive influence on the secret negotiations for CETA and TTIP. - Food quality standards and consumer protection could be weakened. - Workers’ rights and jobs are endangered. - European countries would be falling under pressure to allow high-risk technologies such as fracking or GM technology. - CETA and TTIP will further increase inequalities. - Liberalisation and privatisation will become one-way streets.

Core Objective of the “Self-organised” Citizens Initiative against TTIP:

“The self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) Stop TTIP collected signatures against TTIP and CETA from 7 October 2014 to 6 October 2015. […] we decided to carry out our European Citizens’ Initiative without permission from Brussels and called it a self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative. We think that it is our democratic right as citizens of the EU to have a say on matters that affect us: both TTIP and CETA will have profound effects on our lives and our society.

7. THE DOMINANT ROLE OF GERMAN ORGANISATIONS IN EUROPE’S ANTI-TTIP CAMPAIGN SCENE

In spring 2014, Germany’s leading anti-TTIP organisations decided to launch a European protest movement against TTIP and other trade agreements: the European “Stop TTIP” alliance. According to official information provided by the platform, the alliance brings together more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA.38 The initiative caused the launch of a European protest scene that is, to this day, heavily dominated by German campaign organisations.

38 See web presence of Stop TTIP: https://stop-ttip.org/supporting-organisations/.

70 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

The core founders and key coordinators of the “Stop TTIP” initiative launched in 2014 were German by passport:

- Campact (a professional campaign platform, which was founded by members of attac Germany in 2004), - attac Germany, - Mehr Demokratie (a German NGO promoting democracy and stronger citizen participation), - Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND, Friends of the Earth Germany), and - Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU, the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union Germany).

In addition, the aid organisation of Germany’s Evangelical Church “Brot für die Welt”, “Deutscher Kulturrat” (Germany’s Cultural Council) and Germany’s “Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft” (GEW, the German (Teachers’) Labour Union for Education and Science) were founding members of the European movement against TTIP.

At the same time, the “Seattle to Brussels Network” (an informal network of anti-globalisation groups), the “European Network of attac” and “Friends of the Earth Europe” coordinated the protest network’s early kick-off activities and supported German NGO’s in reaching out to member organisations in other European countries.39 Again, the coordination group of the Seattle to Brussels Network is dominated by Germans. The current group is comprised by Pia Eberhardt (Corporate Europe Observatory), Alessa Hartmann (Powershift Germany), Pietje Vervest (TNI), Johannes Lauterbach (attac Germany), and Györgyi Újszászi (Vedegylet, the only non-German steering group member).40

On 15 July 2014, the “Stop TTIP” movement’s “citizen’s committee” submitted an application to register a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) with the European Commission, whereby the protest network called for TTIP and CETA negotiating mandates to not be concluded. The application for ECI status was dismissed by the European Commission on legal grounds, causing the protest organisations to “launch a self-organised” citizens’ initiative. Following official information provided by “Stop TTIP”, the networks self-organised citizens’ initiative is heavily dominated by German civil society organisations, formal and informal associations, several clerical organisations and labour unions.41

The activists’ claim that the European protest reflects European citizens’ preferences and is based on democratic standards is not backed by the actual numbers of citizens that support the initiative. EU Member States’ citizens support of the “Stop TTIP” campaign is highly asymmetric. 25 percent of all declared European “Stop TTIP” member organisations are headquartered in Ger- many (see Figure 37). In addition, 48 percent of all individual signatories supporting the “Stop TTIP” are Germany by passport (see Figure 38). In other words, half of all European signatories that officially support the anti-TTIP campaign represent just one country: Germany. What is sold by anti-TTIP campaign managers as a “revolt of European citizens” against TTIP turns out to be a German protest orchestrated by Germany’s establishment of Green and Left-wing political parties and well-connected, like-minded NGOs. Acting as a professional alliance, these groups effectively utilised their lead time and dominant position in anti-TTIP opinion making in Germany in an attempt to carry the protest to other European countries, and to be able to negate claims that the protest is an exclusively German phenomenon.

39 See information provided by attac Germany on German and European protest alliances, http://www.attac.de/ kampagnen/freihandelsfalle-ttip/kampagnengruppe/aktionsbuendnisse/, accessed on 8 September 2016. 40 See web presence oft he Seattle to Brussels Network, http://www.s2bnetwork.org/about-us/coordination/, accessed on 8 September 2016. 41 See web presence of Stop TTIP: https://stop-ttip.org/what-is-the-problem-ttip-ceta/?noredirect=en_GB.

71 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Both German anti-TTIP organisations’ “early-bird” advantage and the sustained dominance of German groups in the European network of anti-TTIP organisations is impressively shown by Figure 39. The data depicted by Figure 39 indicate that the European anti-TTIP protest movement is a sort of a rich countries’ club. The data also show that German and Austrian groups spearhead the protest campaign movement, while at the same time less economically developed countries show low levels of support for anti-TTIP protest (for comparison see also Figure 9 and Figure 10 of Section 3).

FIGURE 37: COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF DECLARED ANTI-TTIP MEMBER ORGANISATIONS OF THE “SELF-ORGANISED EUROPEAN CITIZENS INITIATIVE (ECI)” AGAINST TTIP

Germany 25%

EU28 ex Germany 75%

Source: ECIPE analysis. Numbers based on information provided by stop-ttip.org.

FIGURE 38: RELATIVE NUMBER OF CITIZENS SIGNING UP FOR A EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE (ECI) AGAINST TTIP

EU28 ex Germany Germany 52% 48%

Source: ECIPE analysis. Numbers based on information provided by stop-ttip.org.

72 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 39: NUMBER AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF ANTI-TTIP ECI MEMBERS VERSUS QUORUM ACHIEVED AT NATIONAL LEVEL

2300% Germany

2000%

1700%

1400%

1100% Austria United Kingdom 800%

percent of ECI quorum achieved France Netherlands 500% Finland Bulgaria Belgium Sweden Luxembourg Latvia Greece Croatia Slovenia 200% Denmark Spain Czech RepublicRomaniaHungary Ireland Slovakia CyprusEstonia Portugal Lithuania Italy -100% Malta Poland 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Number of declared anti-TTIP "European Citizens' Initiative" organisations

Source: ECIPE analysis. Numbers based on information provided by stop-ttip.org. Note: for an ECI to be successful, a minimum amount of signatures (“country quorum”) has to be gathered in at least seven EU Member States. The EU defines this minimum number of signatures in the ECI rules according to the number of Members a country has in the European Parliament (which is an approximation to the size of its population). The chart can be read as follows: in Germany, where 130 organisations support the ECI against TTIP, the minimum amount of signatures needed was exceeded by about 2,100 percent. In Latvia, where only 4 organisations support the ECI against TTIP, the quorum of votes fell short of about 80 percent of required signatures (23 percent of votes needed).

What is more, the coordination centre of the European “Stop TTIP” platform is headquartered in Germany. The organisation “Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung” with its head office in Berlin officially serves as a platform coordinating initiatives of German organisations that focus on environmental policies and developing countries,42 implying that it not only acts as the coordination centre of the German anti-TTIP campaign “TTIPunfairhandelbar”; Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung also organised and coordinates the “self-organised” European movement against TTIP.

42 Both the “Stop TTIP” initiative’s contact details as well as official bank account information coincide with that of Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung, Berlin, see: https://stop-ttip.org/contact/, accessed on 18 August 2016.

73 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung has long-established ties to Germany’s major environmental institutions – all of which are declared anti-TTIP organisations – and Germany’s Green Party (GRUENE). The organisation is run by Jürgen Maier who was a member of the federal executive board of GRUENE (Germany’s Green Party) from 1987 to 1991.43 Jürgen Maier is a frequent speaker at public hearings about TTIP and CETA in Germany’s federal parliament.44

Moreover, and contrary to intuition, Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung’s anti-TTIP campaign centre, which coordinates the German protests against TTIP) was directly financed by Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment, which is run by SPD minister (and member of Germany’s pro-TTIP government) Barbara Hendricks (see DNR 2013 pp. 20 and 21; Wirtschaftswoche 2016). Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung not only operates as the official coordination centre of the German anti-TTIP initiative “TTIPunfairhandelbar”; it is also the declared coordination centre of the “European Stop TTIP Initiative”, and one of the initiators and coordinators of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) against TTIP. In other words, (perhaps the) leading organisation that is running the anti-TTIP protest movement in the EU was financed and consciously tolerated by the German government, or at least those members of government that were aware of this matter.

German institutions’ dominance and power to set the agenda in Europe’s public debate about TTIP is also reflected by the tweets and messages spread under the label of the European campaign “Stop TTIP” (label on Twitter: @eci_TTIP). Data collected for the period 30 July 2016 to 24 August 2016 indicate that 37 percent of all TTIP- and CETA-related messages were either drafted in German language or originated from Germany anti-TTIP institutions’ accounts. 63 percent of TTIP- and CETA-related messages were authored in other languages, whereby a significant number of these messages dealt with subjects related to German politics or German politicians, primarily those affiliated with the Social Democratic party (see Figure 40).

FIGURE 40: GERMAN DOMINANCE OVER ANTI-TTIP TWEETS ON TWITTER, @ECI_TTIP (STOP TTIP)

"Stop TTIP" tweets and Non-German language tweets retweets in German of "Stop TTIP" (a platfom run language and/or originating by German anti-TTIP groups) from German-based anti- 63% TTIP institutions 37%

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: percentage numbers based on tweets and retweets on Twitter account @eci_ttip (Stop TTIP, “self-organised” European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP. n=100, period covered: 30 July 2016 to 24 August 2016.

43 Jürgen Maier: Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Berlin-based platform coordinating initiatives of organisations that focus on sustainable development, coordination centre of anti-TTIP initiative ‘TTIPunfairhandelbar’); Green Party (GRUENE) member of the federal executive board of GRUNE 1987-1991); affiliated with Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung steering board member and top 50 TTIP speaker Sven Hilbig who represents Brot für die Welt (Aid Organisation of German Evangelical/Protestant Church); chief coordinator of most declared anti-TTIP protest groups that are active members of Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung and “TTIPunfairhandelbar” (which is directly funded by the SPD party-led Federal Ministry of the Environment, see DNR 2013 pp. 20 and 21). 44 For example, list of experts invited to the Bundestag’s experts hearing of the Committee of Economic Affairs and Energy on CETA on 5 September 2016 (Öffentliche Anhörung am Montag, 5. September 2016).

74 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

German NGO’s efforts to take anti-TTIP protests to other European countries is also reflected by the financial transactions of Campact, Germany’s leading anti-TTIP campaign development organisation. Campact, which was founded by members of attac Germany in 2004, spent more than half of its annual campaign budget (in 2015, the total budget was 7 million Euro) exclusively on anti-TTIP campaigns in Germany. However, Campact also financed several anti-TTIP-organisations in Europe, namely PROGRESSI (Italy: 50,000 Euros), Skiftet (Sweden: 70,000 Euros), Uplift (Ireland: 50,000 Euros), Aufstehn (Austria: 25,000 Euros), and Fundacja Akcja Demokracja (Poland: 25,000 Euros). The money was either explicitly granted for anti-TIPP campaigns or labelled as “infrastructure for political education”. (Campact 2016, see Figure 41).

FIGURE 41: ANTI-TTIP AND ANTI-TTP ORGANISATIONS FUNDED BY GERMANY’S COMPACT INCLUDING CAMPAIGN FUNDING AND FUNDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INFRATRUCTURE FOR POLITICAL EDUCATION

Germany degrowth Summer School (skills for system change) 8,000 € Naturfreunde e.V. (Friends of Nature, TTIP Demo… 265,155 €

Europe Ireland (Uplift, TTIP/CETA) 50,000 € Sweden (Skiftet, CETA/TTIP) 70,000 € Italy (PROGRESSI) 50,000 € Poland (Fundacja Akcja Demokracja) 25,000 € Austria (Aufstehn) 25,000 €

United States and Oceania USA (SumOfUs, TTIP/CETA/ISDS) 50,000 € Australia (GetUP, TPP) 41,069 € New Zealand (ActionStation, TPP) 50,000 €

Source: ECIPE analysis. Annual report of Campact e.V., Germany.

Although German anti-TTIP groups’ attempt to influence the TTIP debate in other European countries, the concrete topical subjects addressed by critics of TTIP still differ from country to country, indicating that the “hot spots” in the debate also vary from country to country. In the contemporary debate in Germany, anti-TTIP groups’ focus is on local political decision makers. After initially focusing on food and environmental standards (e.g. messages largely conveyed by the terms “chlorine chicken” and “hormone beef”), anti-TTIP groups’ recent activities primarily focus on “public services” and the alleged implications of TTIP and CETA on German regions and municipalities. It should be noted in this respect that the German Association of Cities and Towns (Deutscher Städtetag; an association of German municipalities) did not recently confirm that CETA poses a threat to public services and public utilities.45

45 See Bundestag expert hearing on CETA of 5 September 2016, statements made by Detlef Raphael, https://www. bundestag.de/bundestag/ausschuesse18/a09/kw36-pa-wirtschaft/436262.

75 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Contrary to Germany, the footsteps of attac are much more visible in the Austrian debate about TTIP. As illustrated by Figure 36, “multinational enterprises”, a traditional topic addressed by attac member organisations across the world in the past 15 years, is the most present topical issue addressed by TTIP events in Austria, followed by issues related to “state and democracy” and “transparency”. At the same time, issues related to “communal and regional impact” and “public services” do not rank high on the agendas set for TTIP events in Austria (see Figure 42). The findings, therefore, indicate that in Germany issues related to the impact on municipalities and public utilities primarily originated from the pens of Germany’s Green and Left-wing parties and associated campaign groups in an attempt to “localise” TTIP-related subjects. In other words, the high number of events organised to inform about “far-reaching” regional or communal threat reflects anti-TTIP groups’ strategic calculus to deliver the complexities of CETA and TTIP in bite-sized pieces to local influencers, primarily local political decision makers.

FIGURE 42: TOP 3 TTIP-RELATED TOPICAL ISSUES BY COUNTRY

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: due to the low number of registered events, the numbers for France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are not statististically representative. Number of registered events: 1,508 for Germany, 112 for Austria, 99 for Belgium, 31 for the United Kingdom, 18 for France, 6 for Netherlands

76 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

8. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S ROLE IN FINANCING ANTI-TTIP PROTEST NGOs: THE “MAKING EU INVESTMENT POLICY WORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT” CASE

As outlined above, Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment initially provided public funding to environmental NGOs to set up a fora for debates about TTIP and other trade agreements. Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung, one recipient, used the money to set up and adminis- ter Germany’s largest campaign (TTIPunfairhandelbar) against TTIP, whereas Germany’s federal government officially supported TTIP negotiations (DNR 2013). According to Wirtschafts- woche (2016), the German Federal Ministry for the Environment does not plan to evaluate this project, i.e. how the money was spent and whether the Ministry’s objectives had been met.

There is no transparency about EU grants to NGOs and financing practices

Our research on financial funding provided by the European Commission to declared anti-TTIP NGOs reveals a similar picture. While it is generally almost impossible (for professional researchers as well as “ordinary” citizens”) to directly retrieve information about the precise scope of terms and conditions applied by the European Commission in granting financial support contracts to third party NGOs and civil society organisations, it is also practically impossible for outsiders to find out on which terms EU taxpayer money was originally granted. It is also close to impossible to access information about how NGO spending practices and compliance with agreed contractual terms were, after all, monitored by the European Commission during and after the provision of public grants.

Although the European Commission runs a Transparency Register for NGOs, in which the size of its public grants is published, there is no detailed information provided about how the money was used and which sub-contractors have been involved in project-related operational work. In addition, even the publication that is made available is occasionally published with significant time delay (see below). More importantly, no information is given about whether NGO interests are in line with the political objectives of the European Commission (for a more detailed discussion see, for example, NGO Monitor 2016). Against this background, it is generally hard to cut through the jungle of EU institutions’ NGO funding instruments. In the context of TTIP negotiations, however, one of the European Commission’s past projects offers a telling example of how critical NGO funding by the European Commission is: the “Making EU Investment Policy work for Sustainable Development” case.

During our research on declared anti-TTIP organisations, we found that the web pages of at least two declared anti-TTIP organisations were “made financially possible by EC funding through the project ‘Making EU Investment Policy work for Sustainable Development’”. Precisely this information is provided in the bottom line of the web pages of “Stop TTIP Denmark” and the “Seattle to Brussels Network” (S2B).46 The steering bodies of the Seattle to Brussels Network are dominated by German anti-TTIP activists. In addition, the Seattle to Brussels Network serves as a key coordination centre for Europe’s major anti-TTIP protest campaign organisations. On 27 June 2016, for example, the Seattle to Brussels Network sent a letter to Commissioner Donald Tusk calling on the EU to “urgently withdraw the mandate for TTIP”. The letter was signed by 240 European anti-TTIP organisations.47

46 See footer of websites http://stopttip.dk and http://www.s2bnetwork.org, accessed on 6 October 2016. 47 See letter published by the Seattle to Brussels Network on 27 June 2016, “Withdraw the TTIP mandate, say 240 European organisations”, http://www.s2bnetwork.org/withdraw-ttip-mandate-say-240-european-organisations/, accessed on 7 October 2016.

77 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

According to the EU’s Transparency Register (query of 6 October 2016), these particular organisations did not receive any public funding from the European Commission. Our follow-up research revealed, however, that the project “Making EU Investment Policy work for Sustainable Development” was originally awarded to the Stichting Transnational Institute (TNI) already in 2013 – when TTIP negotiations were officially launched. The TNI is an international research and advocacy institute in the Netherlands committed to building a just, democratic and sustainable planet.48 According to the EU’s Transparency Register, TNI received almost 700,000 Euro in 2014 from the European Commission’s DG International Cooperation and Development (the Development education and awareness raising (DEAR) facility, see below for information on agreed objectives and expected results). In 2013, TNI received the about the same amount money from the EU (according to own information, see below), whereby information about the terms and objectives is not publicly available.

According to TNI’s annual report of 2015, “TNI plays a particularly significant role in the Eu- ropean Seattle to Brussels (S2B) network, actively working in the Coordination Group, legally hosting the network and supporting its coordinators. TNI is also the host of the Dutch TTIP coalition and participates in the steering group of the Platform currently seeking a referendum on TTIP/CETA.” The organisation also states that “1,150,000 signatures [were] collected with TNI’s help by end 2014 for self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) against TTIP […]”. (TNI 2015)

TNI further states that “[..] ISDS has been taken up for advocacy by a growing number of international actors. TNI supports many of these networks with solid research, strategic advocacy, logistical support, advice and training.” The report further states that “within Europe, TNI co-organised two major trainings on ISDS for activists across Europe (March and November 2015) to build capacity among key organisations in most European capitals so people could lobby their own policy makers and engage the media. These networks were key to mobilising an incredible 3 million people to sign the European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP. In the Neth- erlands, TNI worked with a coalition to gather 100,000 signatures, as well as co-organiser of a demonstration of over 7,000 people […].”

In its campaign work, TNI worked together with several organisations of which almost all are among Europe’s leading declared anti-TTIP campaign organisations (TNI 2015):

- Seattle to Brussels network – declared anti-TTIP - Aitec, France – declared anti-TTIP - ATTAC France – declared anti-TTIP - attac Austria – declared anti-TTIP - Both ENDS, Netherlands – declared anti-TTIP - Le Centre National de Coopération au Développement (CNCD), 11.11.11., Belgium – declared anti-TTIP - Chamber of Labour (Vienna), Austria – declared NO2ISDS - Corporate Europe Observatory, Belgium – declared anti-TTIP - Fairwatch, Italy – declared anti-TTIP - France America Latina, France – according to our research not a declared anti-TTIP organisation - Institute of Global Responsibility, Poland – declared anti-TTIP - Milieudefensie, Netherlands – declared anti-TTIP - Oficina International de los Derechos Humanos Acción Colombia (OIDHACO), Colombia – declared anti-TTIP (signatory to letter published by the TNI in 2015

48 See information provided by the Transnational Institute, https://www.tni.org/en/transnational-institute, accessed on 6 October 2016.

78 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

calling to stop TTIP negotations)49 - Powershift, Germany – declared anti-TTIP - Re-Common, Italy – declared anti-TTIP - Stop TTIP – Italy – declared anti-TTIP - Vedegylet Egyesulet, Hungary – declared anti-TTIP - SOMO, Netherlands – declared anti-TTIP - FNV, Netherlands – according to our research not a declared anti-TTIP organisation - WEMOS, Netherlands – according to our research not a declared anti-TTIP organisation - Foodwatch, Netherlands – declared anti-TTIP - Dutch Dairymen Board, Netherlands - Nederlandse Akkerbouw Bond – according to our research not a declared anti-TTIP organisation - ASEED, Netherlands – declared anti-TTIP - Vrijschrift, Netherlands – anti-TTIP - Platform Authentieke Journalistiek, Netherlands - Platform ABC, Netherlands – according to our research not a declared anti-TTIP organisation - Ecologistas en Acción, Spain – declared anti-TTIP - Traidcraft, UK – according to our research not a declared anti-TTIP organisation - War on Want, UK – declared anti-TTIP - Global Justice Now, UK – declared anti-TTIP - Rosa Luxembourg Foundation Brussels office – declared anti-TTIP

TNI received substantial financial funding from the European Commission. According to TNI’s annual reports of 2013 and 2014 (TNI 2014; TNI 2015), financial grants received from the EU Commission accounted for 25 and 24 percent of TNI’s annual income (about 2.9 million Euros in 2013 and 2014, and 3.8 million Euros in 2015). The numbers correspond to about 718,000 Euros in 2013 and 699,188 Euros in 2014. Although TNI already published its annual report for 2015, it stopped reporting the institutional origins of its funding. Similarly, in the EU’s Transparency Register 2014 is the latest year for which data is available (as of November 2016). As of November 2016, no data was published for 2015, let alone 2016. In addition, TNI received generous funding from the Dutch government, accounting for 42 percent of TNI’s annual budget of 2013 and 35 percent of its 2014 budget (see Figure 43).

FIGURE 43: (EU) FUNDING AND SPENDING ON TRADE AND INVESTENT PROJECTS, TRANSNATIONAL INSTITUTE

€ €

€ € €

€

Source: TNI 2013, 2014, 2016.

49 See letter published by TNI on 11 June 2015, https://www.tni.org/en/article/open-letter-governments-eu-celac. Accessed on 7 October 2016.

79 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

A query on Google about the EU’s project “Making EU Investment Policy work for Sustainable Development” reveals that the EU Commission did not fulfil its legal obligations to provide information about the project.50 After directly requesting information regarding this project, we received an official document from DG Deco precisely stating the objectives and expected results of the project.51 The content of the document “makes reference to the overall objectives, outputs and results in the concept note form elaborate on specific expected results indicating how the action is likely to change the behaviour of the target groups [...].” The original concept note was not provided by the European Commission.

The objectives agreed between DG International Cooperation and Development (DG Deco) and the Transnational Institute (TNI) stated as follows:

Overall objective:

“The overall objective of this action is that EU Investment Policy is coherent with development policy and contributes to the achievement of the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals], sustainable development, and the realization of human rights in developing countries. In order to achieve this overarching objective one specific objective and four expected results have been identified.”

Specific objective:

“[…] to raise awareness among citizens, CSOs [civil society organisations], academics and policy makers and to gain their active support for a reformed EU Investment Policy for Sustainable Development.”

Agreed “expected” results:

1) “With this action we want to reach 3 million EU citizens and ensure that they are aware of the link between investment policy and development through their exposure to project materials. 40,000 EU citizens take action based on their increased understanding of the issue. 2,000 students attend lectures in PCD [Policy Coherence for Development] and investment policy.”

2) “With this action 600 CSOs [civil society organisations] throughout Europe are exposed to the projects messages and 200 CSOs support e-action.”

3) “With the action, 28 academics will attend expert meeting and consultations; 500 academics are reached through the open letter; and 100 academics challenge inconsis- tencies by signing the ‘sign-on’ statement.”

4) “We will reach out to 100 EU policy and 300 national policy makers with project materials. In addition, the project aims to ensure that project materials and activities contribute to 200 EP candidates and 100 elected MEPs publicly declaring support for policy coherence in investment policy by the EU elections in 2014.”

50 The first search result on Google provides a link to the website “asketheEU.org”, on which information states that a reply to this query if overdue for a “very long time”. See https://www.asktheeu.org/de/request/project_ma- king_eu_investment_pol, accessed on 9 November 2016. 51 Document sent by DG International Cooperation and Development (DG DevCo) on 27 October 2016. Title: II. Action, description of objectives.

80 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

The terms of the agreement between the EU Commission and the Transnational Institute offer valuable lessons about how (economic) policymaking is “strategically” shaped by different interest groups. Interestingly, many anti-TTIP groups convey the message that multinational enterprises “hijack” the process of EU law making. The objectives and precisely agreed deliverables of the DG-DevCo-TNI project, however, strongly indicate that quite the opposite is true: strands of the EU Commission provide substantial financial funding to selected NGOs to manufacture discontent about EU policies.

For the project at hand, the preciseness of the expected results suggests that anti-ISDS, anti-TTIP campaigning activities was planned long before TTIP negotiations evolved from June 2013 onwards. Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight (see above analysis), TNI delivered what it agreed on with the DG DevCo:

- More than 3 million EU citizens signed petitions against TTIP, of which investment protection was seen as the most critical part by most declared anti-TTIP activist groups; - The EU Commission’s public consultation on ISDS and investment protection was effectively hijacked due to CSOs’ calls to engage in “e-action” (as stated in the terms of the agreement; see also discussion below).

A “hijacked” public consultation on ISDS

As concerns international investment protection and arbitration rules (investor-state-dispute settlement, ISDS), the European Commission’s public consultation on ISDS in TTIP (European Commission 2015a), which was launched on 27 March 2014 and closed on 13 July 2014, offers a telling example of how TNI’s, and associated campaign organisations’, provision of “strategic advocacy, logistical support, advice and training” impacted on EU policymaking in general and the European Commission’s public consultation procedures in particular.

On 3 July 2014, the EU Commission’s consultation website was temporarily unavailable because many replies were loaded simultaneously into the database. Therefore, the European Commis- sion decided to extend the consultation by one week. In total, 149,399 replies were received. To many observers the high number of replies came as a surprise. By comparison, a 2014 consultation on biodiversity and ecosystem services received 723 answers; a 2014 consultation on water reuse in the EU garnered 506; a 2014 consultation on the quality of drinking water, 5,908; and a 2014 consultation on geographical indication protection and non-agricultural products, 137 replies (European Commission 2015c).

During the ISDS consultation, 97 percent of all replies were submitted by a small number of campaign groups. The responses were often identical or at least very similar to one another. Prior to the consultation, a few anti-TTIP civil society organisations had set up easy-to-use online tools to facilitate participation in the consultation proceedings.

Among the national groups, there were, notably, replies from well-connected British, German, Austrian, Belgian and French consumer and environmental organisations. As a direct consequence, a disproportionate number of replies were received from the UK, followed by Austria, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain. Together, these seven countries accounted for 97 percent of all replies. The European Commission received only 3,589 individual citizens’ submissions, which amounts to 2.4 percent of all the replies received. The huge number of platform-triggered replies caused then Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht to call it “an outright attack” (Järvinen 2015).

According to Friends of the Earth Europe (2015), 131,352 responses were submitted through the online platforms of Friends of the Earth Europe, the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour, the Munich Environmental Institute, 38 Degrees and SumOfUs.org – all of which are declared members of national or EU-wide anti-TTIP networks. The Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour

81 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

is one of TNI’s direct network partners in the European Commission-funded trade and investment project, while 38 Degrees and the Munich Environmental Institute are signatories to TNI’s letter of June 2016 calling on the European Council to stop TTIP negotiations “with immediate effect” (see TNI 2015; TNI 2016).

EU NGO funding biased towards fierce left-wing politics

TNI’s work on issues related to trade and investment should not be diminished or condemned entirely. However, it should stand out of question that EU-TNI and other funding activities must be investigated against the background of the political objectives and law making procedures of the European Commission and other EU institutions. History provides ample exam- ples for the fact that campaigning on political issues does not necessarily provide balanced and empirically-proven information concerning the issues at hand. The fact that TNI’s and associated organisations’ campaign managers are well-connected to a great number of left-wing and progressive organisations (including the European Progressive Economists Network) indicates that its research and campaign initiatives are highly biased towards traditional left-wing political ideologies.

The authors of the NGO Report (2016b, p. 1) argue that the

“relationship between the European Union (EU) and civil society is marked by an unbalanced distribution of funding, favouring a small number of highly interconnected NGOs. The EU and NGOs rely on one another for information, creating a closed echo chamber, undisturbed by any external input or independent evaluation.”

They also argue that

“[the biggest beneficiary NGOs are highly interconnected – with overlapping memberships in multiple networks and shared board members.”

This is not only true for several German anti-TTIP NGOs; it is also true for TNI’s leading representatives. Susan George, to give only one example, who is the president of TNI’s board and author of the book “How to win the Class War”, served on the Board of Greenpeace Internation- al as well as that of Greenpeace France. George is also Honorary President of attac France. All of these organisations strictly reject TTIP on the grounds of ideology and speculation. United in core left-wing ideologies, all of these organisations heavily engage in fierce anti-TTIP campaigning with the same messages and narratives that they started to spread after the beginning of the negotiations – even though the European Commission’s DG Trade continuously provided clarity about what is negotiated, and repeatedly emphasised that it does negotiate in the interest of the common good.

It is highly questionable, whether TNI and its sponsors are actually interested in a fair, balanced and evidence-based public discourse about (economic) policymaking. A TNI-sponsored “Stop TTIP, CETA, TISA” campaign networking event at the European Parliament on 9 December 2014 offers valuable lessons about how different strands of the European Commission engage in creating echo chambers for EU policymaking. At the very beginning of the conference, Susan George, the keynote speaker, stated that

“TTIP is a very dangerous animal. It is an animal that does not deserve to be on the list of protected species […]. [TTIP] is a treaty that has to be refused absolutely and entirely”.52

52 TNI president Susan George at the TNI-financed conference “Stop TTIP, CETA, TISA” - For a Citizens’ trade Agenda, 9 December 2014, European Parliament, Brussels, video available at http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/ events/stop-ttip-ceta-tisa-for-a-citizens-trade-agenda, accessed on 7 October 2016.

82 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

The remainder of George’s talk was characterised by myths and deliberate misreporting of proclaimed facts. In the light of the above, the authors of NGO Report (2016a and 2016b) unde- niably hit a nail.

The European Commission as well as Member State representatives, should seriously question whether NGOs, which should, by definition, be “purely” non-governmental, are eligible to receive enormous amounts of taxpayer funding in the first place. EU institutions should at the very least effectively and transparently evaluate how public money was awarded to the grantees, and which sub-contractors were involved during the conduct of the project. EU institutions should also reconsider the terms and policy objectives currently underlying NGO funding. In the light of simplistic, and thus all too often deceptive, online media campaigns, EU institutions should monitor how CSOs engage in shaping public opinion and strictly condition access to public funds to clearly defined rules on how to engage in campaign activities.

There two major questions that should be addressed by a future investigation of the projects between the EU Commission and the Transnational Institute: 1) What was the role of DG Trade, DG DevCo, other DGs and other EU institutions in this process? And 2) Given the great degree of simplification in the provision of information on investment protection as well as the chimerical character of affiliated CSOs’ messages, position papers and calls to join online petitions, is this the way of policymaking that is appropriate, helpful and sustainable at, and beyond, EU level? The great importance of these matters becomes even more striking when taking into account the following considerations.

9. THE ROLE OF RUSSIA IN SHAPING PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT TTIP

Close observers of the TTIP debate in Germany and other, primarily Western European countries frequently raise the issue of Russian influence on public opinion. Their concerns are twofold: on the one hand, they suspect that some of Germany’s declared anti-TTIP organisations are partly funded by Russian organisations. On the other hand, it is argued that media linked to the Russian government systematically engage in marginalising those groups and individuals that are in favour of TTIP negotiations.

As concerns the financial funding of anti-TITP organisations in Germany, there is no public information available on how anti-TTIP campaign organisations were supported with money originating from Russian sources. It should be noted, however, that one of Germany’s most resourceful and most influential anti-TTIP campaign organisations, Campact (which spent half of its 2015 campaign budget on anti-TTIP campaigns; total 2015 budget about 7 million Euro), does not publish the origin of any donation below the threshold of 5,000 Euro. According to Campact’s latest annual report, however, none of its individual campaign donations exceeded the 5,000 Euro threshold level in 2015. The fact that Campact states that it did not receive any individual contributions exceeding 5,000 Euros in 2015 indicates that donations of individual groups and/or individual persons exceeding the threshold level of 5,000 Euros (if they occurred) had to be split by larger donors.

Not only does the lack of transparency of Campact and other declared anti-TTIP organisations’ finances stand in great opposition to what anti-TTIP organisations repeatedly call for with respect to transparency; the lack of transparent information about the precise origin of donations gives rise to the concern that substantial financial funding may have arrived from pressure groups and individuals that are particularly interested in a systematically adverse impression of TTIP, including Russian sources and other vested interests.

As concerns the influence of Russian government-run media, the patterns in publicly available media data draw a much more enlightening picture. The influence of Russian media outlets Rus- sia Today and Sputnik News on public opinion in Western Europe was already widely discussed

83 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

in the context of the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom (held in June 2016) and the Dutch referendum on the approval of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine (held in April 2016). For the run-up period of both referenda, the influence of Rus- sian media is well-documented (see, e.g., Daily Mail 2016; The Interpreter 2016; The Washing- ton Post 2016; the Times 2016). As concerns TTIP, Russian media outlets also vividly engaged in writing about the negotiations and documenting anti-TTIP protest activities in Germany and other European countries. Indeed, as is pointed out by Politico (2016b), TTIP is “being eyed warily in Moscow, where Russian officials see the potential deal as a threat”.

For the period February 2015 to February 2016, our analysis of online media coverage of TTIP not only shows that Russia Today (RT) actively reported about TTIP negotiations; the data also show that Russia Today’s media coverage of TTIP was on average systematically more negative than total online media reporting about TTIP. As shown by Figure 2, two patterns loom up for global online media reporting abut TTIP: firstly, according to UNICEPTA analytics, sentiment analysis, only 4 percent of Russia Today’s online media reporting on TTIP conveyed a positive message about TTIP compared to 11 percent for global online media reporting about TTIP. Secondly, 71 percent of Russia Today’s online media reporting about TTIP conveyed a negative sentiment, compared to 51 percent for global online media reporting about it.

The data (adjusted by national population) also indicate that Germany is, by far, Russia Today’s most important target market for TTIP-related (largely bashing) news. For example, the absolute number of media entries that were published by Russia Today’s in Germany is about 4 times higher than those published by Russia Today in France and almost 10 times higher than in the United Kingdom. In addition, negative online media reporting of Russia Today is particularly profound for Germany (66 percent of 896 RT contributions), the Netherlands (75 percent of 156 RT contributions), the United Kingdom (82 percent of 96 RT contributions), and the United States (80 percent of 1,219 RT contributions; see Figure 3).

FIGURE 44: SENTIMENT OF TTIP-RELATED ONLINE MEDIA REPORTING, RUSSIA TODAY VERSUS TOTAL MEDIA REPORTING

51%

71%

38%

26%

11% 4% Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: numbers based on UNICEPTA analytics. Total number of TTIP-related entries: 513,501. Number of TTIP-related entries Russia Today: 3,091. Period: February 2015 to February 2016. Languages covered: NDL, GER, ENG, FR, ESP.

84 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

As concerns the content of Russia Today’s online media reporting about TTIP, its topical coverage ranges from addressing the components of a potential TTIP agreement to anti-TTIP demonstrations, the merits of free trade in general and national party politics of TTIP. For example, Russia Today’s German outlet strongly promoted anti-TTIP demonstrations in Germany. Russia Today even provided an exclusive livestream of the protesters’ march in Berlin – obviously in an attempt to increase public awareness of TTIP protests in Germany.53 In addition, Russia Today’s US television outlet provided detailed guidance on how to campaign against TTIP on the Internet.54 While we cannot provide a detailed discussion of Russia Today’s topical coverage of TTIP negotiations in this report, some further observations are outlined below.

It turns out that Russian government-controlled media outlets repeatedly reported about the “European Disintegration, Unemployment and Instability” pamphlet of Jeronim Capaldo (2014), in which the author fabricated out-of-proportion, in fact “horror scenario” implications exclusively for European countries after an implementation of TTIP. For example, Capaldo writes that a French household comprising of two persons would suffer an annual income loss of more than 11,000 Euros after the implementation of TTIP. The study is beset by such serious flaws, that its results should neither be regarded realistic nor well-intended, but purposefully manufactured without paying attention to the accomplishments of trade liberalisation in the past 200 years (for a critical discussion see, e.g., Bauer and Erixon 2015a and 2015b; Wolf 2015; Pelkmans 2015). After its initial publication in English in 2014, Capaldo’s study was translated by the German Bundestag administration on request of Germany’s left-wing party DIE LINKE. It was also heavily promoted by Germany’s major declared anti-TTIP organisations and was thereafter translated into several other European languages by declared anti-TTIP organisations. 55

Russia Today’s British television outlet provided a platform for Capaldo to discuss his findings in an interview. Moreover, Russian government-controlled Sputnik News as well as a controversial German media outlet called Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten, which is well-known for bashing the United States and praising of Russia, repeatedly reported about the findings of Capaldo and the alleged implications for Europe. Interestingly, Capaldo’s results were frequently promoted as “recent findings”, even two years after their original publication in 2014. On 25 September 2016, for example, the editors of sputniknews.com referred to the study when writing about how a “TTIP ‘Trojan Horse’ Deal May Lead to ‘Economic Division of Europe’”. Interestingly, Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten presented precisely the same story when writing on exactly the same issue (TTIP can cause economic disintegration of Europe) in German language one month earlier, on 26 August 2016.

53 See, e.g., Am kommenden Samstag: Der Kampf gegen TTIP und CETA erobert die Straße, 14 September 2016, https://deutsch.rt.com/inland/40666-kommenden-samstag-kampf-um-ttip/ an Live: Tausende zu Protest gegen TTIP und CETA in Berlin erwartet, 17 September 2016, https://deutsch.rt.com/live/40744-live-am-samstag-ab-12/, accessed on 6 October 2016. 54 See Russia Today US’ contribution of 9 June 2015: ‘Controversial & contested’: TTIP free trade agreement faces criticism across Europe, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHDAjgtgtSw, accessed on 6 October 2016. 55 See German translation of Capaldo (2014) promoted by Germany’s Mehr Demokratie e.V., one of Germany’s major anti-TTIP oganisations, https://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdf/ttip-studie_zerfall_arbeitslosi- gkeit_und_instabilitaet_in_europa.pdf, accessed on 5 October 2016. In the paper, reference is made to Germany’s left-wing party DIE LINKE, which commissioned the German Bundestag language services department to transla- te the report into German. In addition, several anti-TTIP groups engaged in translating the document into French, Italian and Spanish. An executive summary is available in English, Croatian, Czech, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish, and Ukrainian. The translation into Italian was supported by attac Torino, Italy. The translation into French was supported by La Fondation pour une Terre Humaine (FTH, the Human Earth Foundation). See references made in http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/14-03CapaldoTTIP_ IT.pdf and http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/14-03CapaldoTTIP_FR.pdf respectively, accessed on 6 October 2016. For the Spanish translation, no reference of funding is provided.

85 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

FIGURE 45: SENTIMENT OF COUNTRY-SPECIFIC TTIP-RELATED ONLINE MEDIA REPORTING, RUSSIA TODAY VERSUS TOTAL MEDIA REPORTING

21%

36% 36% 42% 46% 44% 52% 56% 56% 53% 62% 63% 66% 75% 82% 80%

59% 37% 45%

52% 48% 52% 38% 33% 38% 34% 36% 34% 28% 27% 22% 17% 21% 19% 14% 12% 9% 10% 8% 8% 2% 4% 6% 2% 6% 3% 3% 3%

Source: ECIPE analysis. Note: numbers based on UNICEPTA analytics. Total number of TTIP-related entries: 8,578 (Switzerland), 41,946 (Italy), 18,400 (United Kingdom), 14,273 (Nether- lands), 48,234 (France), 41,841 (Spain), 249,181 (Germany), 91,075 (United States). Number of TTIP-related entries Russia Today: 39 (Switzerland), 89 (Italy), 96 (United Kingdom), 156 (Netherlands), 245 (France), 351 (Spain), 896 (Germany), 1,219 (United States). Period: February 2015 to February 2016. Languages covered: NDL, GER, ENG, FR, ESP.

86 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

10. THESES AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The public debate about TTIP (and CETA) in Germany and other European countries got poisoned. Negative statements and alleged threats that originally arose from green and left-wing politicians and associated NGO campaign managers created high levels of media attention in and beyond Germany. Associated reporting of traditional media, which is generally systematically biased towards the reporting “bad news” content, heavily impacted on citizens’ feelings about TTIP (and CETA). TTIP supporters bemoan an unprecedented rise of negativity in political campaigns and against TTIP and prejudicial media coverage, but were either unwilling or unable to make their voices heard.

TTIP opponents’ strongest weapon is ideology, while proponent’s political or economic interests are divided, preventing concerted action in support of the agreement. TTIP proponents in Germany and Europe acted less than half-hearted and, accordingly, below perception levels in making the case for TTIP and explaining the social and economic benefits of the agreement to European citizens. TTIP proponents recklessly underestimated the role of negative messages in what became an extremely polarised political debate – a debate that now goes far beyond the legal provisions set out in the texts of a potential TTIP agreement.

A nationalist cult of state that rejects EU policymaking

Similar to other populist groups, both the way of reasoning and the way of expression of anti-TTIP groups rests upon classical, though still popular, green and left-wing political doctrines aiming to snatch frustrated, anti-establishment voters and donors (for a comprehensive academic analysis of the features of “populism” see Müller 2016). Thus, orchestrated fearmongering, invented myths and the systematic exaggeration of the negative implications of modern trade agreements for society not only shed a bad light on TTIP and other trade agreements; anti-TTIP groups’ messages also reveal an ambivalent cult of the state (in terms of the government and governmental institutions), worshipping the role of national public institutions as creators of societal welfare and protectors of decency and valuable national and cultural norms. In other words, the fact that anti-TTIP groups attack EU Trade Policy discredits the politics of the European Union – let alone the European Project – as a whole, putting grist to the mills for nationalist movements, whose prime message is that national interests are being sold out in Brussels. This is, in essence, the message that was financed by the European Commission itself when granting money to the Transnational Institute and affiliated anti-TTIP NGOs.

The most active, and thus most influential anti-TTIP groups and individuals promote a school of thought that impacts on the European zeitgeist of globalisation and citizens’ attitudes (reser- vations and sympathies) towards the EU’s open (social) market economies in general.

All too often, declared anti-TTIP, anti-CETA protest groups praise themselves as defenders of “our” national democracy and “our” national values. Their narratives aim to convey the message that protests TTIP are the result of a united bottom-up movement, whereby they constantly argue that the movement is supported by the majority of European citizens.

“The more citizens know about TTIP and CETA, the less they want them – that’s the essence of the European Commission’s latest poll. Within the first year of our campaign, support for the ongoing negotiations has fallen in 24 out of the 28 EU Member States, by 5% on average; while rejection increased by 7%.” (announcement of “Stop TTIP” Campaign management, 21 January 2016)56

56 See announcement on official “Stop TTIP” campaign web presence of 21 Jaunary 2016, https://stop-ttip.org/ blog/its-eu-official-opposition-to-ttip-keeps-increasing/?noredirect=en_GB, accessed on 12 August 2016.

87 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

From a TTIP negotiations (and free trade and open societies) supporter’s perspective, it is particularly worrisome that the (German) coordinators of Europe’s “Stop TTIP” movement claim for themselves to be the only righteous sources of information about TTIP, even though the agreement’s text has not been drafted yet. On being asked how this could come to pass, a great number of answers was given by a great number of political observers. However, there is another undeniable truth, a salient truth that cannot be ignored: although TTIP was a political project from the very beginning, the lack of political free trade supporters’ goodwill to promote good economic policies significantly added to the success of TTIP opponents’ campaigns in manufacturing widespread discontent about TTIP and shaping public opinion.

German politics matter

The conspicuous gap between exceptionally high levels of public aversion to TTIP in Germa- ny and significantly lower levels of aversion to TTIP in other European countries cannot be explained by EU Member States’ differences in cultural heritage or the state of economic development. True, a certain proportion of differences in public opinion can be explained by average levels of individual wealth (e.g., GDP per capita), and general aversion to EU policymaking (e.g., the perception of many Germans that their interests are being sold out in Brussels). The largest proportion of Germany’s gigantic surplus in aversion to TTIP – and this is the main find- ing of this paper’s analysis – is explained by two phenomena: 1) a super-connected, effectively coordinated campaign movement against TTIP in Germany, which was and still is orchestrated by Germany’s green and left-wing political party and NGO establishment, and 2) the silence and wait-and-see mentality of pro-TTIP and pro-trade political parties, businesses, business associations and civil society groups who, disheartened and discouraged, left the field to those speaking the language of risk, danger and victimhood.

Political observers argue that negative discourse can have positive effects – a truism. Certainly, it is a necessary condition for modern democracies to have a broad debate about all the laws and policies initiated and enforced at EU, Member State and sub-federal levels. It is a sufficient condition, however, that the debate is also informed and shaped by trusted experts that are aware of the fact that the great miseries of today’s world, including those of the European Union, are not to be found in trade. Trade and migration are usual suspects in search for the causes of inequality, social isolation, social immobility, or the dysfunction of governmental institutions in general. Trade however, unlike migration, is usually based on mutual consent, which is why those who purchase products and services can actively shape the pattern of production, let alone the patterns of industries and markets. And trade cannot, and must not, become the scapegoat for failed policies in education, the regulation of competition and market power abuse, redistribution and democratic representation.

It turns out, from above analyses, that the TTIP debate in Germany is overly dominated by vote- and donation-chasing green and left-wing politicians and affiliated, super-connected and, to this day, generally well-trusted environmental and pro-democracy civil society organisations as well as Germany’s largest labour unions. TTIP has become a vital element of these groups’ political business models, as it was from the very beginning presented as an embodiment of fracking, genetically-modified organisms, ruthless multinational industrials and eroding labour standards. Germany’s and other EU countries’ green and left-wing political parties (e.g., in Wallonia, Bel- gium and France) boldly bet on the political victories from exploiting citizens latent mistrust in domestic institutions and the EU’s socioeconomic ecosystem. Affiliated civil society NGOs and labour unions were literally revived by the dissemination of crisis and end of capitalism men- talities. Their narratives are so simplistic, ideological and distant from empirical evidence that it would be naive to assume that simply blocking TTIP negotiations would contribute to the economic convergence and social development of EU countries, let alone developing countries.

88 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.”

(William Buttler Yeats, “The Second Coming” 1919)

Trusted experts needed to hold anti-TTIP organisations’ campaign managers accountable

Anti-TTIP groups’ directors, campaign managers and spin doctors repeatedly claimed to be sufficiently qualified to provide “TTIP expertise” to public hearings and the media. They also claim to be qualified to provide expertise on how business is conducted or must be conducted in an ever more globalised world. It is striking though that – almost without exception – none of Germany’s most active anti-TTIP speakers can look back to careers in privately-run enterprises, let alone an institution independent from taxpayer money. Similarly, most of these “self-proclaimed” experts cannot look back to a professional career in academics either. Germany’s anti-TTIP influencers’ professional careers are, to the largest extent, built on political party mandates, as well as public sector institutions, campaigning jobs at NGOs, and influential labour union officials’ mandates.

In other words, Germany’s most active, most vocal and therefore most influential anti-TTIP figureheads not only benefit from taxes and membership fees levied on private sector workers and entrepreneurs; they never professionally engaged in private-sector businesses where compensation is based on risks, courage, and professional skills that go beyond political campaigning.

All too often, anti-TTIP groups convey that they do not attach considerable value to those who make their living in a private, internationally operating company, or simply those who compete for consumers’ favour on a daily basis. Instead, NGO campaigners, labour union officials and professional politicians engage in orchestrated anti-establishment movements in order to pre- vent the negotiations of a modern trade agreement. By exploiting the political power of going negative, their exclusive aim is to badmouth fair, balanced and historically-proven rules for the driving forces of individual and societal freedom and prosperity: private sector businesses, competitive markets and international trade.

For political parties, businesses and citizens that are interested in a Transatlantic dialogue about high standards, good rules for fair competition and, not least, good rules for good society, it is time to begin to challenge anti-TTIP propaganda in Germany, Austria and other European countries. The friends of open and pluralist societies, opponents of isolation and supporters of TTIP negotiations should not blame ill-informed and often anxious protesters on the streets, but confront the protest campaigns’ “puppet masters”. It is high time to hold anti-TTIP groups’ campaign managers accountable for evoking citizens’ emotions by spreading myths and for contributing to anti-TTIP, anti-globalisation hate speech on the Internet and beyond.

89 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

REFERENCES

IfD Allensbach (2013), IfD Survey Nr. 11017, November 2013.

Bauer, M. (2015a), Emotionen statt Argumente - Hintergründe zu den Protesten gegen TTIP, KAS ANALYSEN UND ARGUMENTE, 173/2015.

Bauer, M. (2015b), Klicks gegen TTIP, Netzaktivismus als Mittel zur Massenmobilisierung, KAS ANALYSEN UND ARGUMENTE, 174/2015.

Bauer, M. (2015c), Campaign-triggered mass collaboration in the EU’s online consultations: the ISDS-in-TTIP case, European View, June 2015, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp. 121–129.

Bauer, M. and F. Erixon (2015a), Splendid Isolation as Trade Policy - Mercantilism and Crude Keynesianism in “the Capaldo Study” of TTIP, ECIPE Occasional Paper, 03/2015.

Bauer, M. and F. Erixon (2015b), Capaldo Fails to Convince, ECIPE blogpost, 13 May 2015, http://ecipe.org/blog/capaldo-fails-to-convince/, accessed on 6 October 2016.

Bertelsmann Foundation (2016), Attitudes to global trade and TTIP in Germany and the United States, GED Study.

Campact (2016), Der Campact Report 2016, https://blog.campact.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/160726_Campact_Transparenzbericht2015.pdf.

Campact (2015), Der Campact Report 2015, https://blog.campact.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/campact_report_2015.pdf.

Capaldo, J., 2014, e Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: European Disinteg- ra-tion, Unemployment and Instability, Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper NO. 14-03.

Daily Mail (2016), How Vladimir Putin is waging a propaganda war on the UK and the West using a Kremlin-backed news agency based in SCOTLAND, 30 July 2016, http://www.dai- lymail.co.uk/news/article-3715869/How-Vladimir-Putin-waging-propaganda-war-UK-West- using-Kremlin-backed-news-agency-based-SCOTLAND.html#ixzz4LT9Ide2q, accessed on 27 September 2016.

Dalia Research (2016), eu28 survey data, https://daliaresearch.com/e28/.

DNR (2013). Leistungsbericht des Deutschen Naturschutzrings 2013, http://www.dnr.de/ downloads/leistungsbericht-2013.pdf.

Dreyer, I. (2015), The Politics of TTIP in Europe: In the Shadow of the Ageing German Voter, article published on the Cato Online Forum in October 2015, http://www.cato.org/ publications/cato-online-forum/politics-ttip-europe-shadow-ageing-german-voter, accessed on 22 July 2016.

Eurobarometer (2015), Eurobarometer 84 wave, December 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/COM- MFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/STANDARD/ surveyKy/2098.

European Commission (2015a), Online public consultation on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Part-nership agreement (TTIP), Report. SWD (2015) 3 final, 13 January.

90 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

European Commission (2015b), Report presented today: Consultation on investment protec-tion in EU–US trade talks, Press release, 13 January.

European Commission (2015c), Your voice in Europe, The European Commission’s Internet access point for online participation, www.ec.europa.eu/yourvoice.

Fabry, E. (2015), France: A Hotbed of Opposition to the TTIP?, Notre Europe Policy Paper 136, 10 June 2015.

FAZ (2015), Freihandesabkommen TTIP: Da läuft etwas aus dem Ruder, 23 February 2015. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/ttip-und-freihandel/freihandelsabkommen-eu-usa-chron- ik-des-anti-ttip-protests-13442387.html, Accessed 9 August 2016.

Financial Times (2016), The TTIP has missed its political moment, article published by the Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/466ebdd4-fb3f-11e5-8f41-df5bda8beb40.htm- l#axzz4Exetfu3o, accessed on 20 July 2016.

Fratzschner, M. (2016), Germany’s Strange Turn Against Trade, article pubished on Project Syndicate, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/germany-opposition-transatlantic-trade-partnership-by-marcel-fratzscher-2016-06, published on 6 June 2016.

Friends of the Earth Europe (2015). Consultation or cover-up? The European Commission’s consultation on investment protection in the transatlantic trade deal, Media briefing, 12 Jan- uary, https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/isds-public-consultation-briefing.pdf, accessed on 7 October 2016. infratest dimap, 2016, ARD-DeutschlandTREND, Mai (May) 2016, http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/ard-deutschlandtrend/2016/mai/, accessed on 20 July 2016.

Järvinen, H. (2015). EU commissioner on ISDS consultation: ‘An outright attack’. EDRi, 30 July. https://edri.org/eu-commissioner-isds-consultation-outright-attack/. accessed on 7 Octo- ber 2016.

Kolev, G. (2016), Ja zum Freihandel, nein zu TTIP? Die TTIP-Skepsis und ihre Ursachen, IW-Report, 25/2016.

Lawrence, R. Z. (2016), Studies of TPP: Which Is Credible?, Trade and Investment Pol- icy Watch, 28 January 2016, https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/studies-tpp-which-credible, accessed on 5 October 2016. Müller, Jan-Werner (2016), Was ist Populismus [What is populism?], Suhrkamp, Berlin, 2016.

NGO Monitor (2016a), EU Funding for NGOs – Value for Money?, NGO Monitor Report, Feb-ruary 2016, available at http://www.ngo-monitor.org/nm/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ Value-for-money-Part-I-Final-1.pdf.

NGO Monitor (2016b), EU Funding for NGOs- Value for Money? Part II- an Echo Cham- ber, available at http://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/eu-funding-for-ngos-value-for-money- part-ii-an-echo-chamber/.

Pelkmans, J. (2015), An Overview and Comparison of TTIP Studies, in World Trade Institute (Ed.), TTIP and the EU Member States, Berne: University of Berne, World Trade Institute.

Pertersen, T. (2015), Die stille Liebe der Deutschen zur Planwirtschaft, In: Siegfried Karl, Hans-Georg Burger (Hrsg.): Ausverkauf des Menschen? Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Ethik im

91 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Gespräch, Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag 2015, pp. 41-53. Politico (2016a), Credibility of Europe’s trade policy at stake, article published by Politico on 7 May 2016, http://www.politico.eu/article/credibility-of-europes-trade-policy-at-stake/, accessed on 21 July 2016.

Politico (2016b), The man who killed TTIP, article published on Politico, http://www.politico.eu/article/the-man-who-killed-ttip-thilo-bode-foodwatch-germany-free-trade/, accessed on 21 July 2016.

Politico (2016c), Moscow wary of TTIP talks, 5 September 2016, http://www.politico.eu/ article/moscow-wary-of-ttip-talks-description-as-economic-nato-trade-us-eu/, accessed on 27 September 2016.

Sparding, P. (2014), Germany’s Pivotal Role on the Way to TTIP, The German Marshall Fund of the United States, EUREUOPE POLICY PAPER 5/2014.

The Interpreter (2016), Putin’s Media are Pushing Britain for the Brexit, 12 February 2016, http://www.interpretermag.com/putins-media-are-pushing-britain-for-the-brexit/, ac-cessed on 27 September 2016.

The Times (2016), Putin TV Channel Twists the Thinking of Western Viewers, 1 August 2016, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-tv-channel-twists-the-thinking-of-western- viewers-l8pwfdmss, accessed on 27 September 2016.

The Washington Post (2016), The Dutch just showed the world how Russia influences West- ern European elections, 8 April 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russias-influence-in-western-elections/2016/04/08/b427602a-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story. html?utm_term=.b5d110834898, accessed on 27 September 2016.

TNI (2016), Withdraw the TTIP mandate, say 240 European organisations, 27 June 2016, accessed on 7 October 2016.

TNI (2015), Annual Report of the Transnational Institute of 2015, http://annual2015.tni.org/ trade-investment/ and http://annual2015.tni.org/trade-investment/, accessed on 7 October 2016.

TNI (2014), Annual Report of the Transnational Institute of 2014, http://annual2014.tni.org, accessed on 7 October 2016.

TNI (2013), Annual Report of the Transnational Institute of 2013, http://annual2013.tni.org, accessed on 7 October 2016.

TTIP Unfairhandelbar (2015), List of members, http://www.ttip-unfairhandelbar.de/start/ wer-wir-sind/mitgliederliste/, accessed 9 August 2016. van Ham, P. (2016), Communicating TTIP - Challenges for the European Union, Clingen- dael Policy Brief, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, March 2016.

Wirtschaftswoche (2016), Umstrittenes Freihandelsabkommen Bundesregierung hat TTIP-Gegner finanziell unterstützt, article published on 17 September 2016, http://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/umstrittenes-freihandelsabkommen-bundesregierung-hat-ttip-gegner-finanziell-unterstuetzt/14551870.html, accessed on 6 Oc-tober 2016. Wolf, M. (2015), The embattled future of global trade policy, article published on FT.com, 12 May 2015, https://www.ft.com/content/0911ea96-f803-11e4-8bd5-00144feab7de, ac-cessed on 6 October 2016.

92 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

ANNEX I. MAJOR DECLARED ANTI-TTIP ORGANISATIONS IN GERMANY

Organisation and Institutional Main Affiliations in Anti-TTIP Positions on TTIP Background Protest and Campaign Work Catholic Labour Union - Rigorous call to stop of negotia- - European Citizens Initiative (Katholische Arbeiterbewegung tions against TTIP (EBI) Deutschlands e.V., KAB) - KAB argues that TTIP promotes - Stop TTIP Germany - Social association of employees an economy that ‘kills’57 - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany - Objective: support of clerical so- - Call on German citizens to form - DGB, BUND, attac, Campact, cial principles, social justice alliances and to mobilise against Mehr Demokratie, Forum Um- - Non-TTIP initiatives: alliance for TTIP and CETA welt und Entwicklung work-free Sundays, network ‘un- - Underlying ideology: globalisation - ECWM – European Christian conditional base income’, alliance according to principles of catholic Worker Movement against foodstuff speculation, alli- social teaching - Bavarian Alliance against TTIP ance promoting a stronger taxa- - Major claims: exclusion of public - Figurehead: Ralf Welter, Quote: tion of wealth services from liberalisation and ‘TTIP, CETA, TPP and TISA are - Number of members in 2016: privatisation, no ISDS in TTIP, no attacks on our social market 125,000 (in Germany) relaxation of environmental and economy’58 - Funding: member fees, grant social standards, recognition and from Catholic Church Germany incorporation of ILO core labour - Precise information of funding standards not publicly available - Accountability report not publicly available German Trade Union Federation - In a joint statement of labour - European Citizens Initiative (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, unions and federations of cultural against TTIP (EBI) DGB) workers, DGB calls for a rigorous - Stop TTIP Germany - Largest confederation of trade stop of the TTIP negotiations59 - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany unions in Germany - General call for increased trans- - BUND, attac, Campact, Mehr - Umbrella organisation for 8 Ger- parency Demokratie, Forum Umwelt und man trade unions representing - Strong rejection of ISDS in TTIP Entwicklung, ver.di, IG Metall roughly 6 million employees and other international trade - Figurehead: Lukas Bläsius, - Member unions: 1) Industrial agreements61 Quote: ‘We fear an increasing Union Construction, Agriculture, - Call for inclusion and strong en- pressure on our, better, [labour Environment; 2) Industrial Union forcement of ILO labour rights market] conditions and a race- Mining, Chemicals, Energy; 3) incl. sanctioning mechanisms to-the-bottom [due to US influ- Union for Education and Science; - Strong call for exclusion of public ence].’62 4) Industrial Union for Metalwork- services from liberalisation and ers (IG Metall); 5) Union for Food, privatisation in TTIP and TISA61 Beverages, and Catering; 6) Po- lice Union; 7) Railway and Trans- port Union; 8) United Services Union (ver.di) - Funding: member union contributions

57 See KAB position paper of 5 April 2014: “Nein zu einer Wirtschaft die tötet – Nein zum transatlantischen Freihan-delsabkommen!”, reference is made to recital 53 of the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, in which Pope Francis generally condemns the “the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless”. 58 See KAB News, Vortrag gegen CETA, TISA and TTIP in Trier, http://www.kab-trier.de/fordern/gegen-ttip-ceta-u-a/gegen-ceta-tisa-und-ttip-vortrag-in-trier/, accessed on 14 June 2016. 59 See joint press release “TTIP und CETA stoppen! – Für einen gerechten Welthandel! Gewerkschaften, Verbände und Kulturschaffende rufen gemeinsam zu einer Großdemonstration am 10. Oktober in Berlin auf” , http://www.dgb.de/themen/++co++a48e86b6-4a6d-11e5-9e50-52540023ef1a/@@dossier.html, accessed on 4 June 2016. 60 See DGB “Evaluation by the Confederation of German Trade Unions: Investment Protection in TTIP & Other Inter-national Agreements”, 24 February 2016.

93 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Organisation and Institutional Main Affiliations in Anti-TTIP Positions on TTIP Background Protest and Campaign Work United Services Union (Verei- - Call to stop TTIP (and CETA) - European Citizens Initiative nigte Dienstleistungsgewerk- negotiations against TTIP (EBI) schaft, - Call to secure labour rights, - Stop TTIP Germany ver.di) employee participation - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany - Umbrella trade union of roughly - Call to ensure highest standards - BUND, attac, Campact, Mehr 2 million employees, freelancers, for environmental and consumer Demokratie, Forum Umwelt civil servants and students drawn protection und Entwicklung, IG Metall from over 1,000 different occu- - TTIP puts public services at risk pations - ISDS procedures are an attack - Funding: member fees on democratic sovereignty, the rights of parliaments and the rule of law - Call for positive lists for sector-specific negotiations Working Group of Small and - Call to stop TTIP and other trade - European Citizens Initiative Medium-sized Farms and Farm- negotiations)63 against TTIP (EBI) ers (Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuer- - TTIP represents an attack on - Stop TTIP Germany liche Landwirtschaft e.V., AbL) peasant farmers - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany - Objective: promotion of environ- - Investment protection: No shift- - BUND, NABU, attac, Campact, mentally and socially sustainable ing of powers to favour private Mehr Demokratie, Forum Um- agriculture, and creation of public companies welt und Entwicklung awareness of social dimension of - Trade policy must be drawn up in agriculture in general a future-oriented, democratic and - Non-TTIP initiatives: initiative multilateral way, taking into ac- against industrial agriculture, count social and ecological con- initiative promoting milk produc- cerns, particularly those of poor tion quotas and subsidies for countries around the world64 agricultural production, initiative - Regulatory cooperation: No against the proliferation of GMO, reduction of environmental and initiative against factory animal consumer standards, for example farming regarding GMOs - Funding: precise information of - No creeping introduction of funding not publicly available chemical cleaning of carcasses - Accountability report not publicly - No weakening of the regional available seal of origin for quality products - Small-scale farming must not be destroyed by excessive market opening - European trade policy must continue to be able to protect sensitive agricultural markets in the EU

61 See DGB ‚Stellungnahme des Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbundes zum plurilateralen Abkommen über den Handel mit Dienstleistungen – TiSA, 24 February 2016. 62 See Volksfreund article ‚ TTIP: Vier Buchstaben, viele Befürchtungen’ from 25 June 2015, http://www.volksfreund.de/nachrichten/welt/themendestages/themenderzeit/Weitere-Themen-des-Tages-TTIP-Vier-Buchstaben-viele-Befuerchtungen;art742,4249817, accessed on 14 June 2016. 63 See AbL position paper ‚Freihandelsabkommen stoppen – unübersehbare Auswirkungen auf die bäuerliche Landwirtschaft, Einschätzung zum Transatlantischen Handels- und Investitionsabkommen (TTIP) zwischen der EU und den USA’, April 2014. 64 See AbL position paper‚ TTIP and CETA: An attack on peasant farmers, How TTIP negotiations and the text of the CETA agreement lower valuable standards and quality levels for consumer protection and agriculture’, March 2015.

94 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Organisation and Institutional Main Affiliations in Anti-TTIP Positions on TTIP Background Protest and Campaign Work attac Germany (association - Call to stop TTIP (and CETA) - European Citizens Initiative pour une taxation des transac- negotiations against TTIP (EBI) tions financières pour l'aide aux - Organisation of Germany-wide - Stop TTIP Germany citoyens, attac) protest - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany - Objective: promotion of social - Major claims: TTIP negotiations - DGB, BUND, attac, Campact, and ecological justice in the are held in secret and the power Mehr Demokratie, Forum Um- globalisation process, protest of multinationals (MNCs) is more welt und Entwicklung against a growing worldwide important in the negotiations social inequality and a globalisa- than democracy, TTIP will reduce tion which only serves economic production standards, consumer interests protection and workers’ rights, - Non-TTIP initiatives: campaign wages, as well as environmental calling for unitary corporate and social requirements taxation, campaign about the - Multinational companies will be European crisis calling for a more able to sue states if new envi- solidary , social and democratic ronmental or social laws diminish Europe, a campaign about social their profits inequality calling for increased - Hormone-treated beef and ge- taxation of the super-rich and a netically modified food will be social tax reform, campaign call- sold in supermarkets without ing for switching to other (more labelling responsible) banks, campaign - Energy companies will be able to calling for a financial transaction sue the state to obtain a license tax for fracking - Funding: largely from donations - The precautionary principle, and membership fees, big proj- regulation of financial markets, ects also funded by acquisition data protection and public pro- of external funding from public, curement are at risk ecclesiastical or private organisations - Publicly available budgetary plan German NGO promoting more - Call to stop TTIP (and CETA) - European Citizens Initiative direct democracy (Mehr Demo- negotiations against TTIP (EBI) kratie e.V.) - Organisation of Germany-wide - Stop TTIP Germany - Objective: Promote direct de- protest - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany mocracy, citizen-friendly and fair - TTIP and CETA threaten the rule - DGB, BUND, attac, Campact, voting rights as well as a more of law and democratic partici- Mehr Demokratie, Forum Um- democratic EU and globalisation pation welt und Entwicklung - Non-TTIP initiatives: initiatives for - The Investment Court System nationwide referendums, promo- (ICS) creates a parallel judiciary tion of petitions in the federal system states and communes, promoting - TTIP and CETA threaten public more democratic voting system services on the federal and sub-federal - Regulatory cooperation in CETA level, promote freedom of infor- will lead to a reduction of labour, mation, a democratic EU, more consumer and environmental democratic globalisation standards - Funding: Membership fees and - The CETA negotiation mandate is donations non-democratic, negotiations are - Publicly available budgetary plan non-transparent and parliaments have a weak role

95 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Organisation and Institutional Main Affiliations in Anti-TTIP Positions on TTIP Background Protest and Campaign Work Association for the Environment - Call to stop TTIP (and CETA) - European Citizens Initiative and Nature Protection (Bund negotiations against TTIP (EBI) für Umwelt und Naturschutz - Organisation of Germany-wide - Stop TTIP Germany Deutschland, BUND) protest - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany - Objective: Promotion of sustain- - TTIP will bring genetically modi- - DGB, BUND, attac, Campact, able development in Germany fied food, hormone-treated beef, Mehr Demokratie, Forum Um- - Non-TTIP initiatives: Various chlorinated chicken and fracking welt und Entwicklung initiatives for the protection of - TTIP puts environmental, con- the environment and animals, sumer protection standards as concerning energy and climate well as democratic principles and change, generic engineering, the rule of law at risk nuclear energy, agriculture etc. - Investor-state dispute settle- - Funding: Mainly membership ment will hinder improvements fees and donations (68%) and in environmental and consumer some third-party project funds standards (10%) - Negotiations are non-transparent - Publicly available budgetary plan and exclude civil society - TTIP threatens the existence of many EU farms, in particular beef, pork and dairy producers - Consumers on both sides as well as peasant farmers will be the biggest losers from TTIP Local Anti-TTIP Group “Stop - Call to stop TTIP (and CETA) - Stop TTIP Germany TTIP” (Stop TTIP) negotiations - Objective: alliance of more than - Organisation of Germany-wide 500 European organisations protest aiming to stop TTIP and CETA - Regulatory cooperation is - Non-TTIP initiatives: none non-democratic as it allows com- - Funding: donations (~40%), panies to influence draft legisla- foundations (~30%), member tion before it is being discussed organisations (~30%) in parliaments - Accountability report: overall - The Investment Court System income and sources publicly enables companies to sue gov- available ernments if investments are affected or profits are reduced by regulations and it puts pressure on governments to allow high- risk technologies such as fracking or genetic engineering - Multinationals are heavily involved in and influence the negotiation process - Negotiations are secret, no information for the public and little involvement possibilities for parliamentarians - Food and consumer standards will be reduced - TTIP will put labour rights and employment in danger - TTIP and CETA will increase inequalities - Privatization of public services cannot be reversed

96 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Organisation and Institutional Main Affiliations in Anti-TTIP Positions on TTIP Background Protest and Campaign Work Local Anti-TTIP Group “TTIP not - Organisation of Germany-wide - European Citizens Initiative (fair) negotiable” (TTIPunfair- protest against TTIP (EBI) handelbar) - More democracy and transpar- - Stop TTIP Germany - Objective: alliance of NGOs aim- ency needed instead of secret ing to critically watch the TTIP negotiations negotiations - Investor-state dispute settlement - Non-TTIP initiatives: none undermines fundamental princi- - Funding: No information publicly ples of the rule of law available on homepage - TTIP does not help consumers and farmers, its “main objective is to enable agro-industry to assert industrial standards”65 - European environmental legislation is declared a trade obstacle instead of maintaining high standards and the precautionary principle - Consumer and health standards must not be lowered - Employee and human rights have to be protected on a binding basis - Protection and extension of public services necessary instead of deregulation - Regulation of financial sector instead of deregulation - Protection of cultural diversity necessary - Innovation, education and freedom of information instead of even more exclusive rights to corporate “intellectual property” Alliance 90/The Greens (Bünd- - TTIP serves the interest of mul- - European Citizens Initiative nis 90/Die Grünen) tinationals which determine the against TTIP (EBI) - Political Party negotiations - Stop TTIP Germany - Funding: Membership fees, do- - Product standards will be low- nations, public funding etc. ered - Accountability report publicly - Regulatory cooperation enables available companies to influence the regulatory process and to stop regulatory initiatives before these are being discussed in Parliaments - Investor-state-dispute settlement is non-democratic and non-transparent and enables companies to sue governments over environmental and social standards

65 See “TTIP: NO THANKS! THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO CREATE A TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP”, Policy Paper of German Non-governmental Organisations on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership EU – USA (TTIP), http://www.ttip-unfairhandelbar.de/fileadmin/download/material/engl_pospap_ ttip_web_24April2014.pdf, accessed on 22 Au-gust 2016.

97 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Organisation and Institutional Main Affiliations in Anti-TTIP Positions on TTIP Background Protest and Campaign Work Democratic Socialist Party (DIE - ISDS enables companies to sue - European Citizens Initiative LINKE) states if new environmental or against TTIP (EBI) - Political Party social laws diminish their profits - Stop TTIP Germany - Funding: Membership fees, do- - TTIP will bring hormone-treated nations, public funding etc. beef and genetically modified - Accountability report publicly food without labelling available - Labour, social and environmental rights will be undermined - TTIP will enable energy companies to sue for a fracking autho- rization - Negotiations are non-transparent and influenced by lobbyists Ecological Democratic Party - Call to stop TTIP (and CETA) - European Citizens Initiative (Ökologisch-Demokratische negotiations against TTIP (EBI) Partei, ÖDP) - TTIP creates pressure to privatize - Stop TTIP Germany - Political Party public services - Funding: Membership fees, do- - ISDS puts pressure on com- nations, public funding etc. munes and federal states which - Accountability report publicly can hardly defend themselves available against environmentally dangerous approaches like fracking and genetic engineering - Regulatory cooperation endan- gers democratic principles and the rule of law because companies get a say in regulatory processes - The public, trade unions and environmental associations are most- ly excluded from the negotiations while lobbyist are involved Metal Workers Union (IG Metall) - Call to stop TTIP (and CETA) Some regional groups part of - Trade union representing em- negotiations - Stop TTIP Germany ployees in the metal and elec- - Labour and consumer rights as - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany trical, iron and steel, textiles and well as environmental and social clothing, information technology, standards need to be protected wood and plastic industries, as at high levels well as temporary employees - ISDS undermines democracy - Funding: Membership fees because by using private organs - No accountability report publicly it enables companies to bypass available national laws and courts and should therefore be taken out - Conditions to consent to TTIP: Comprehensive participation of parliaments and civil society in the negotiations, binding protection and enhancement of labour rights, environmental and social standards, limit the privatization/ liberalization of public services and do not hinder reregulation, no investment protection which hinders states to regulate, ratifi- cation of main ILO provisions by the US

98 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Organisation and Institutional Main Affiliations in Anti-TTIP Positions on TTIP Background Protest and Campaign Work Platform for German NGOs on - TTIP undermines environmental, - European Citizens Initiative Sustainable Development (Fo- agricultural and consumer pro- against TTIP (EBI) rum Umwelt und Entwicklung) tection standards - Stop TTIP Germany - Objective: coordinate the coop- - ISDS enables companies to sue - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany eration between environmental states regarding unpopular laws - DGB, BUND, attac, Campact, and development organisations and regulations Mehr Demokratie, Forum Um- that are committed to sustainable - TTIP promotes the privatization welt und Entwicklung development of public services - Non-TTIP initiatives: projects on - Negotiations are secret and agriculture, natural resources, non-transparent forestry, sustainable development - Publication of a TTIP-reader with goals selected position papers from - Funding: seems to come from different NGOs member organisations - Accountability report not publicly availably German Cultural Council - Call to stop TTIP (and CETA) - European Citizens Initiative (Deutscher Kulturrat) negotiations against TTIP (EBI) - Umbrella organisation of German - Cultural institutions and public - Stop TTIP Germany cultural associations services in danger due to TTIP - Objective: initiate discussion - TTIP will enable market access about cultural policy on all polit- for multinational media com- ical levels and promote artistic panies at the cost of cultural freedom as well as the freedom diversity and the cultural industry of information and publication in Europe66 - Non-TTIP topics: integration, copy right, protection of cultural goods, cultural policies - Funding: From members, public funds, foundations - Accountability report not found, not publicly available

Development Organisation - TTIP is a risk for developing - European Citizens Initiative Protestant Development Service countries, because: ISDS limits against TTIP (EBI) (Brot für die Welt) sovereignty and the ISDS provi- - Stop TTIP Germany - Objective: Projects in developing sions in TTIP will be the blue print countries to promote develop- for agreements with developing ment countries; services regulations in - Non-TTIP initiatives: projects on TTIP could serve as a blueprint food security, the promotion of for TiSA and other future ser- health and education, the access vices negotiations and limit the to water, the strengthening of policy space for developing coun- democracy, respecting human tries; agricultural market access rights will lead to preference erosion for - Funding: main sources are public developing countries; it puts food development funds, donations security in developing countries and clerical funds at risk67 - Publicly available budgetary plan - TTIP negations are non-transparent and non-democratic

66 See “Kultur braucht kein TTIP: Erfolgreiche Demonstration in Hannover gegen TTIP, CETA & Co.”, Deut- scher Kultur-rat, https://www.kulturrat.de/pressemitteilung/kultur-braucht-kein-ttip-erfolgreiche-demonstration-in-hannover/, accessed 23 August 2016. 67 See “Nachhaltige Handelspolitik statt TTIP Das EU-USA-Freihandelsabkommen birgt Gefahren für den Süden”, Aktuell 39, Brot für die Welt, https://www. brot-fuer-die-welt.de/fileadmin/mediapool/2_Downloads/Fachinformationen/Aktuell/Aktuell_39_Nachhaltige_ Handelspolitik_statt_TTIP.pdf , accessed 23 August 2016

99 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Organisation and Institutional Main Affiliations in Anti-TTIP Positions on TTIP Background Protest and Campaign Work German NGO for (PowerShift - More transparency and stronger - European Citizens Initiative - Verein für eine ökologisch-so- rules on ecological and social against TTIP (EBI) lidarische Energie- & Weltwirt- protection are needed - Stop TTIP Germany schaft e.V.) - ISDS is non-democratic, provides - TTIPunfairhandelbar Germany - Objective: Contribute with ed- privileges for foreign investors ucation and publicity, research and favours corporate interests and political activities to a global over public health and social energy transformation and more rights equitable world economy - Regulatory cooperation under- - Non-TTIP initiatives: Energy, mines democratic legislative climate, natural resources, trade process and favours the interest and economic policy of corporations over environmen- - Funding: public funding from tal and consumer protection Germany and EU, foundations, - TTIP (and CETA) will have neg- membership fees, donations ative impacts on climate change and energy policy

100 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

ANNEX II: THE TTIP EVENTS DATASET, GERMANY

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1 Ausstellung Freihandelsfalle TTIP - Stadtbibliothek Erlangen 10 February Erlangen 91054 2015

2 Endspurt des Systemwandels Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA, TISA 02 March Hamburg 20095 und die Rolle der Kunst – Ein Aufruf zum Handeln 2015

3 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Freibrief für Konzerne? 02 March Bad Honnef 53604 2015

4 TTIP - Gefahr für die Demokratie? 02 March Karlsruhe 76133 2015

5 TTIP - Ein toxisches Abkommen 02 March Gießen 35390 2015

6 TTIP - Widerstand und das alternative Handelsmandat 02 March Gießen 35390 2015

7 TTIP und CETA. Jetzt geht’s ans Eingemachte! 03 March Berlin 13595 2015

8 Was ist TTIP und was bedeutet es für VerbraucherInnen, Beschäftigte, 03 March Bad Dürkheim 67098 Staat und Wirtschaft? 2015

10 Eine historische Chance für die transatlantische Partnerschaft? 03 March Frankfurt 60311 2015

11 TTIP – Risiken und Nebenwirkungen 03 March Gelsenkirchen 45891 2015

12 Alternativen für Deutschland: Euro, TTIP und mehr 03 March Wissen 57537 2015

13 TTIP verhindern – die Handlungsfähigkeit der Kommunen bewahren! 03 March Kelkheim 65779 2015

14 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 03 March Reutlingen 72762 2015

15 TTIP ohne Kultur 04 March Berlin 13353 2015

16 Transatlantischer Freihandel – Chancen und Risiken 04 March Lüdenscheid 58511 2015

17 TTIP, CETA und TISA, was geht mich das an? 04 March Bocholt 46399 2015

18 TTIP und CETA - Gefahr oder Chance? 04 March Bamberg 96050 2015

19 Transatlantic Cooperation and the Crisis in Ukraine 05 March Berlin 10117 2015

20 Schreckgespenst TTIP? ? Chancen und Risiken des Handelsabkom- 05 March Hannover 30159 mens mit den USA 2015

21 STOP TTIP 05 March Potsdam 14482 2015

22 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA, TiSA - Chancen und Risiken für 05 March Syke 28857 Wirtschaft und Verbraucher 2015

23 TTIP, Fluch oder Segen? 05 March Goch 47574 2015

24 Freihandelsabkommen - Fluch oder Segen? 05 March Marktoberdorf 87616 2015

25 Thema TTIP, content n/a, neutral 05 March Kamen 59174 2015

26 Was bringt uns TTIP und CETA? Chancen und Risiken 05 March Fleckeby 24357 2015

27 Geheimsache Freihandelsabkommen CETA - TTIP - TISA Angriff auf 05 March Augsburg 86150 Demokratie und Rechtsstaat: Konzerne profitieren – Bürger verlieren 2015

28 Was haben TTIP, TISA & CETA mit der Stadt Köln zu tun? 05 March Köln 50672 2015

29 TTIP: Freihandel für Alles? - Wo bleiben die Rechte von Bürgern und 05 March Köln 50667 Kommunen? 2015

30 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Ausverkauf an Großkonzerne oder Zu- 05 March München 81369 kunftschance? 2015

31 Das Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen - Chancen und Risiken für 06 March Magdeburg 39104 die Wirtschaft Sachsen-Anhalts 2015

101 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

32 TTIP – Auf dem Prüfstand! …– Was steckt dahinter? 06 March Halle/Saale 6108 2015

33 TTIP - Markt der unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten? 06 March Potsdam 14467 2015

34 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Konzerninteressen auf Kosten des Kon- 06 March Belheim 76756 sumenten? 2015

35 Diskussionsveranstaltung zum Thema TTIP 06 March Rostock 18055 2015

36 TTIP: Ein Angriff auf Demokratie und Rechtsstaat 06 March Traunstein 83278 2015

37 TTIP Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft. Analyse 07 March München 80336 und Bewertung 2015

38 Vorsorge statt Nachsorge: TTIP und CETA verhindern - Freie Fahrt für 07 March Mainz 55116 neue und alte Gifte? 2015

39 TTIP - Was kommt da auf Landwirte und Verbraucher zu? 08 March Markt Nordheim 91478 2015

40 Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) – Fluch oder Segen 09 March Rostock 18055 für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern? 2015

41 Potenziale des Freihandelsabkommens mit Kanada (CETA) 09 March München 80333 2015

42 TTIP-Diskussionsveranstaltung 09 March Frankfurt 60311 2015

43 Das geplante Freihandelsabkommen TTIP mit den USA – Fluch oder 09 March Schorndorf 73614 Segen für Europa? 2015

44 Diskussionsveranstaltung zum transatlantischen Freihandelsabkommen 09 March Ummendorf 88444 TTIP 2015

45 Chlorhühnchen oder Jobwunder? 09 March Kaiserslautern 67655 2015

46 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 09 March Klingenberg-Trennfurt 63911 2015

47 TTIP und CETA im Faktencheck 09 March Aschaffenburg 63739 2015

48 Freihandelsabkommen und das Klima - TiSA, TTIP, CETA 09 March Bremen 28195 2015

49 Stirbt die Demokratie? 09 March Bergisch-Gladbach 51465 2015

50 CETA, TTIP und die Folgen 09 March Weiker- 97990 2015 sheim-Schäftersheim

51 TTIP- Ausverkauf unserer Werte? 09 March Tangstedt 22889 2015

52 TTIP und CETA: Sozialdemokratische Anforderungen, offene Fragen 09 March Kusterdingen 72127 2015

53 Auswege aus dem Imperialismus der Ökonomie - TTIP oder Dreiglie- 09 March Tübingen 72074 derung 2015

54 Eine rechtliche Analyse der neuen EU-Handelspolitik am Beispiel des 10 March Nürnberg 90443 geplanten Transatlantischen Freihandelsabkommens TTIP und deren 2015 Konsequenzen für die Gesellschaft

55 Das geplante Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA 10 March Gadebusch 19205 (TTIP) 2015

56 Frühjahrsempfang: Freihandelsabkommen mit den USA (TTIP) 10 March Celle 29221 2015

57 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 10 March Havixbeck 48329 2015

58 EU-Wirtschaftsabkommen mit Westafrika: Afrikas TTIP - Kuhhandel 10 March Stuttgart 70173 oder Partnerschaft auf Augenhöhe? 2015

59 Was verspricht das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen Amerika und 10 March Frankfurt am Main 60487 Europa? Was kann es halten? 2015

60 TTIP – Freihandelsfalle oder Wachstumsgarant? 10 March Dresden 1219 2015

61 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, content n/a, neutral 10 March Reutlingen 72764 2015

62 TTIP/CETA - Brücke in die Zukunft 10 March Düsseldorf 40221 2015

102 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

63 Welche Folgen haben die geplanten Freihandelsabkommen für uns? 10 March Ismaning 85737 2015

64 Informationsabend zu TTIP 10 March Nürnberg 90429 2015

65 TTIP – Transatlantischer Traum oder Trauma? 10 March Schotten 63679 2015

66 TTIP und CETA als Chance oder Risiko? 11 March Stockelsdorf 23617 2015

67 Das geplante Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA 11 March Parchim 19370 (TTIP) 2015

68 TTIP - unfairhandelbar? 11 March Bad Sassendorf 59505 2015

69 TTIP, CETA und TISA 11 March Heidelberg 69115 2015

70 Freihandel - Demokratie oder Konzerndiktatur? 11 March Krumbach 86381 2015

71 TTIP FREI? 11 March Denzlingen 79211 2015

72 Was ist TTIP und was bedeutet es für uns? 11 March Lemgo 32657 2015

73 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP" Die Angst der Deutschen vor Genmais, 11 March Ebersberg 85560 Hormonsteaks, Chlorhühnchen und neuen Sitten in Wirtschaft und 2015 Demokratie

74 TTIP - eine Gefahr für die Demokratie 11 March Schechen 83135 2015

75 Der große Deal - Geheimakte Freihandelsabkommen 11 March Lebus 15326 2015

76 TTIP und CETA als Chance oder Risiko? 11 March Reinfeld 23858 2015

77 TTIP event, content n/a, neutral 12 March Berlin 10115 2015

78 TTIP: Chancen und Erwartungen der Gesundheitswirtschaft 12 March Berlin 10117 2015

79 TTIP, CETA usw. Sonderklagerechte für Unternehmen? Nein, es gibt 12 March Bremen 28195 Alternativen 2015

80 TTIP CETA TiSA - Machtpolitische Instrumente und Jobkiller 12 March Siegen 57076 2015

81 TTIP – Fluch oder Segen Chancen, Chlorhühnchen, Demokratieverlust, 12 March Düsseldorf 40227 Wachstum? 2015

82 TTIP — Warum die Linke “Nein” sagt 12 March Leipzig-Schönefeld 04347 2015

83 CETA und TTIP – Chancen und Risiken des transatlantischen Freihan- 12 March Tübingen 72072 dels 2015

84 TTIP & Co.? NEIN, DANKE? 12 March Forchheim 91301 2015

85 Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) - Chancen und Risiken 12 March Pforzheim 75179 2015

86 TTIP-Abkommen mit den USA 12 March Dorsten 46286 2015

87 Was machen Sie eigentlich in Straßburg? u.a. TTIP - Gefahren und 12 March Kolbermoor 83059 Perspektiven. Was können wir tun? 2015

88 Anti-TTIP-Veranstaltung 12 March Weilheim 82362 2015

89 TTIP: Was ist wirklich dran? 13 March Lich 35423 2015

90 Das Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionsabkommen (TTIP) - 13 March Bonn 53125 Chancen und Risiken 2015

91 TTIP und CETA – Risiken auch für Bonn? 13 March Bonn 53115 2015

92 Chlorhühnchen oder Jobwunder? 13 March Hochspeyer 67691 2015

103 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

93 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA - Nein danke 13 March Olching 82140 2015

94 Freihandelsabkommen-Was ist TTIP und was bedeutet es? 13 March Neustadt 67433 2015

95 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 13 March Offenburg 77652 kungen auf die Kommunen 2015

96 Diskussions-Treff: Zum geplanten Freihandelsabkommen TTIP zwischen 13 March Winnenden 71364 der EU und den USA 2015

97 Was ist TTIP, CETA, CISA? 14 March Hertlingshausen 67316 2015

98 TTIP – Die Freihandelslüge: Lesungen und Podiumsdiskussionen mit 14 March Leipzig 04356 Thilo Bode 2015

99 Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Job- und Wachstumsmo- 15 March Berlin 10719 tor oder Absenkung von Arbeits- und Sozialstandards 2015

100 TTIP - Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen 15 March Tülau 38474 2015

101 TTIP: Öffentliche Anhörung 16 March Berlin 10557 2015

102 TTIP – Was bedeutet das für Lebensmittel? 16 March Hannover 30159 2015

103 TTIP und die Folgen 16 March Flintsbach 83126 2015

104 TTIP und Verbraucherschutz 16 March Bad Oldesloe 23843 2015

105 Gefährdet TTIP den Digitalen Binnenmarkt in Europa? 17 March Hannover 30521 2015

106 TTIP, CETA, TISA - was verbirgt sich hinter diesen Kürzeln 17 March Münster 48151 2015

107 Themenforum TTIP, content n/a, neutral 17 March Göttingen 37073 2015

108 TTIP - Risiko für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz? 17 March Neubrandenburg 17033 2015

109 TTIP - Ausverkauf oder Chance? 17 March Neuburg an der 86633 2015 Donau

110 Hamburg: Brennpunkt TTIP – Was bedeutet das Freihandelsabkommen 17 March Hamburg 20457 für Hamburgs Verbraucher und Unternehmen? 2015

111 Was ist TTIP? - Vortrag und Diskussion 17 March Heideck 91180 2015

112 TTIP und das internationale Kräfteverhältnis 17 March Berlin 10178 2015

113 TTIP - Chancen und Risiken eines transatlantischen Freihandelsab- 17 March Lippstadt-Bad Wald- 59556 kommens 2015 liesborn

114 CETA & TTIP – Auswirkungen auf die kommunale Daseinsvorsorge 18 March Köln 50667 2015

115 Thema: TTIP, content n/a, neutral 18 March Brandenburg an der 14776 2015 Havel

116 TTIP – Die Freihandelslüge: Lesungen und Podiumsdiskussionen mit 18 March Köln 50667 Thilo Bode 2015

117 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 18 March Leipzig 04109 2015

118 CETA – nimmt das EU-Kanada-Freihandelsabkommen TTIP vorweg? 18 March Berlin 10179 2015

119 DAS HANDELSABKOMMEN TTIP UND DIE FOLGEN FÜR LÜBEC 18 March Lübeck 23552 2015

120 TTIP - Monster, Megachance – oder einfach nützlich? 18 March Bonn 53113 2015

121 Regulatory Coherence & Cooperation in the Transatlantic Trade and 19 March Berlin 10178 Investment Partnership (TTIP) 2015

122 Die transatlantische Partnerschaft – Zukunft gemeinsam gestalten 19 March Berlin 10117 2015

123 TTIP – wir müssen reden! / TTIP - we need to talk 19 March Hannover 30169 2015

104 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

124 CETA & TTIP – was tut sich? 19 March München 81669 2015

125 Globalisierung 3.0: Die geplanten Freihandelsabkommen und die 19 March Schwerin 19055 Zukunft der Weltwirtschaft 2015

126 TTIP, Fluch oder Segen für die deutsche Wirtschaft und Verbraucher? 19 March Weyhe 28844 2015

127 TTIP – Welche Auswirkungen hat das Freihandelsabkommen auf 19 March Aurich 26603 unsere Lebensmittel 2015

128 TTIP - Chancen und Perspektiven zum möglichen Freihandelsabkom- 19 March Schwäbisch Hall 74523 men mit den USA 2015

129 TTIP - Was bringt das Freihandelsabkommen 19 March Gladbach 51465 2015

130 Die möglichen Risiken von TTIP, CETA und TISA 19 March Isen 84424 2015

131 TTIP – Die Freihandelslüge: Lesungen und Podiumsdiskussionen mit 19 March München 80333 Thilo Bode 2015

132 TTIP: Regulatory Coherence and Cooperation 20 March Berlin 10117 2015

133 TTIP Informationsveranstaltung 20 March Betzdorf 57518 2015

134 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA: Chancen und Herausforderunge 20 March Leinfelden-Echter- 70771 2015 dingen

135 TTIP oder freier Handel für unfreie Bürger? 20 March Hüttenberg Volpert- 35625 2015 shausen

136 Was steckt hinter CETA und TTIP? 20 March Bergneustadt 51702 2015

137 TTIP & Co? Nein Danke! - Freihandelsabkommen und die Gefahren für 20 March Uffenheim 97215 uns vor Ort stoppen 2015

138 Stille Macht (Eine Lobbyisten-Komödie mit Evergreens & Schmachtfet- 20 March Aachen 52068 zen, content n/a, neutral 2015

140 Themenfrühschoppen zu TTIP 22 March Brillon 59929 2015

141 Europäischer Frühschoppen zum Thema TTIP 22 March Leverkusen 51379 2015

142 TTIP: Chance für den Mittelstand? 23 March Hilden 40721 2015

143 Welche Auswirkungen hat die Transatlantische Freihandels- und 23 March Stuttgart 70173 Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP) auf die Kultureinrichtungen in Ba- 2015 den-Württemberg?

144 TTIP – Was bedeutet das für Lebensmittel? 23 March Stade 21682 2015

145 TTIP: Chancen und Risiken für Deutschland 24 March Tübingen 72070 2015

146 TTIP, TISA und Co 24 March Braunschweig 38100 2015

147 Angriff auf die Demokratie oder Chancen für die Wirtschaft? 24 March Wesel 46483 2015

148 TTIP – a threat or a chance for Europe? 24 March Stuttgart 70173 2015

149 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA & TiSA 24 March Mayen 56727 2015

150 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA 24 March Berlin 13353 2015

151 Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 24 March Freiberg am Neckar 71691 2015

152 TTIP unfair handelbar - Mehr Wohlstand für wen? 24 March Herford 32052 2015

153 Angriff auf die Demokratie!? , content n/a, neutral 24 March Billerbeck 48727 2015

154 Informationsabend zum Transatlantischen Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 25 March Leipzig 4107 2015

155 Diskussionsabend zu TTIP 25 March Heilbronn 74074 2015

105 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

156 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP auf dem Prüfstand 25 March Neuenhagen 15366 2015

157 TTIP ist böse! 25 March Sindelfingen 71063 2015

158 Offene Mitgliederversammlung zum Thema "TTIP" 25 March Wesseling 50389 2015

159 TTIP – Was bedeutet das für Lebensmittel? 26 March Celle 29221 2015

160 Freihandels- und Investitionsschutzabkommen EU-USA (TTIP) 26 March Gladbeck 45968 2015

161 TTIP im Dialog - Teil 2 26 March Eschweiler 52249 2015

162 TTIP - Gefahr für die Demokratie 26 March Baden-Baden 76532 2015

163 Die Aushöhlung der Demokratie durch die sogenannten “Frei” han- 26 March Buchenbach 79256 delsabkommen TTIP, CETA und TiSA 2015

164 TTIP - Chance für den Mittelstand 26 March Bremen 28195 2015

165 TTIP, CETA,... - Was steckt dahinter? 26 March Tirschenreuth 95643 2015

166 TTIP - Freihandelsabkommen USA / Europa 26 March Oberhausen 46045 2015

167 TTIP – Die Freihandelslüge: Lesungen und Podiumsdiskussionen 26 March Berlin 10119 2015

168 Info-Veranstaltung zu TTIP 26 March Gomading-Dapfen 72532 2015

169 TTIP, content n/a, neutral 27 March Berlin 10117 2015

170 Fortschritt durch Handel? 27 March Düsseldorf 40212 2015

171 TTIP & CETA was geht mich das an? 27 March Kiel 24159 2015

172 TTIP – Fluch oder Segen? 27 March Murr 71711 2015

173 Podiumsdiskussion TTIP 27 March Leutkirch im Allgäu 88299 2015

175 Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP. Chance oder Risiko? 30 March Aue 08280 2015

176 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA: Chancen und Herausforde- 30 March Leipzig 04177 rungen 2015

177 TTIP in der Diskussion 30 March Pfullingen 72793 2015

178 STOP TTIP Hameln-Pyrmon 31 March Hameln 31787 2015

179 Chlorhühnchen oder Jobwunder?, content n/a, neutral 31 March Kusel 66869 2015

180 Freie Handels- und Investitionsabkommen stoppen 01 April Lübeck 23552 2015

181 TTIP und CETA – Positionen der Grünen in Baden-Württemberg 01 April Weinheim 69469 2015

182 Diskussion mit den Wahlkreisabgeordneten, Kommunalpolitikern und 02 April Schwarzenbek 21493 Experten zu Fracking und TTIP in Schwarzenbe 2015

183 Öko, Bio, TTIP und CETA – Verbraucherschutzpolitik auf dem Prüfstand 07 April Würzburg 97082 2015

184 TTIP – Historische Chance oder Gefahr für die Demokratie? 07 April Darmstadt 64283 2015

185 Freihandel aus soziologischer Perspektive am Beispiel TTIP 07 April Lepizig 04109 2015

186 Welche Folgen haben TTIP und CETA für Bremen? 07 April Bremen 28755 2015

187 Freier Handel - Wohlstand für alle oder Gewinn für wenige 09 April Dresden 01067 2015

106 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

188 Risiko Freihandelsabkommen: CETA – TISA – TTIP - Alle Macht den 09 April München 80539 Großkonzernen? 2015

189 Gut wirtschaften mit TTIP, CETA, TISA? 09 April Burghausen 84489 2015

190 Alles ISDS oder was? Konzernklagerechte im TTIP, CETA & Co 10 April Berlin 10997 2015

191 Gerechter Welthandel statt TTIP und CETA: Das alternative Handels- 10 April Bremen 28205 mandat 2015

192 TTIP, CETA und TiSA, Auswirkungen auf Rechtsstaat und Demokratie? 11 April Berlin 10785 2015

193 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 11 April Lehrte 31275 2015

194 Konzerne auf Kaperfahrt 11 April Millenberg 63897 2015

195 Konzerne auf Kaperfahrt 11 April Wörth am Main 63939 2015

196 TTIP & Co - Gefährden die Freihandelsabkommen Demokratie, Arbeits- 13 April Emden 26721 stands, unsere Landwirtschaft und die Umwelt? 2015

197 TTIP: Konjunkturprogramm für Exportwirtschaft und Mittelstand? 13 April Neuhausen ob Eck 78579 2015

198 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken - Welche Auswirkungen hat das Freihan- 13 April Weilmünster 35789 delsabkommen auf die Standards der sozialen Marktwirtschaft? 2015

199 Montagsspaziergang gegen TTIP 13 April Würzburg 97070 2015

200 TTIP - Das europäisch-amerikanische Freihandelsabkommen - Chancen 13 April Mittweida 09648 und Risiken 2015

201 TTIP und CETA Was bringen uns Freihandelsabkommen? 13 April Jena 07743 2015

202 TTIP & Co - Gefährden die Freihandelsabkommen Demokratie, Arbeits- 13 April Emden 26721 standards 2015

203 Ausländische Direktinvestitionen: aktuelle Herausforderungen 14 April München 81679 2015

204 TTIP: Chancen und Herausforderungen für die deutsche und europäi- 14 April Frankfurt am Main 60549 sche Industrie 2015

205 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP – Ende der kommunalen Selbstverwaltung? 14 April Borna 04552 2015

206 TTIP, CETA und Landwirtschaft: Wachstum für Konzerne - was haben 14 April Berlin 10117 Bauern und Verbraucher davon? 2015

207 “TTIP, TISA und die Kommune” 14 April Lüdenscheid 58509 2015

208 doudrüh g`hört geredt 14 April Gemünden 97737 2015

209 Info- und Diskussionsabend zu TTIP und CETA 14 April Melle 49324 2015

210 Konzerne auf Kaperfahrt 14 April Tann 84367 2015

211 Transatlantische Freihandelszone? TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 14 April Hallstadt 96103 2015

212 TTIP und die Auswirkungen auf die deutsch-amerikanischen Wirt- 15 April Hannover 30521 schaftsbeziehungen 2015

213 TTIP & CETA: Chancen und Risiken von Freihandelsabkommen 15 April Münnerstadt 97702 2015

214 TTIP: Gefahr oder Chance? 15 April Rastatt 76437 2015

215 Mit TTIP zur Wirtschaftsnato 15 April Bremen 28201 2015

216 TTIP und die Kommunen – Was kommt da auf uns zu? 15 April Saarweilingen 66793 2015

217 TTIP und CETA: Freihandelsabkommen in dieser Form? NEIN, Danke 15 April Dannenberg 29451 2015

218 TTIP Freihandelsabkommen – Fluch oder Segen? 15 April Füssen 87629 2015

107 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

219 TTIP - in wessen Interesse? 16 April Koblenz 56068 2015

220 TTIP, CETA, TISA - Kürzel, die die Welt verändern? 16 April Ravensburg 88214 2015

221 Die Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA 16 April Löhne 32584 2015

222 Mehr Demokratie Bayern, content n/a, neutral 16 April Freising 85354 2015

223 FREIER HANDEL UM JEDEN PREIS? Das transatlantische Freihandel- 16 April Meppen 49716 sabkommen zwischen Europa und den USA 2015

224 Podiumsdiskussion zum Thema TTIP 16 April Göttingen 37073 2015

225 Das umstrittene Handelsabkommen EU- USA (TTIP) und seine mögli- 16 April Bernburg 06406 chen Auswirkungen 2015

226 Welche Folgen wird TTIP für uns haben? 16 April Berlin-Marienfelde 12277 2015

227 Diskussion: TTIP - mehr Freihandel - weniger Demokratie? 16 April Frankfurt am Main 60385 2015

228 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP/CETA - Angriff auf die Demokratie 16 April Heidelberg 69115 2015

229 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und Ceta – Fluch oder Segen? 16 April Grasbrunn 85630 2015

230 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP/CETA – Angriff auf die Demokratie 16 April Heidelberg 69115 2015

231 TTIP, CETA, TiSA 17 April Unterschleißheim 85716 2015

232 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 17 April Bühl 77815 kungen auf die Kommunen 2015

233 Vortrag zu TTIP 17 April Sehnde 31319 2015

234 Was die geplanten Freihandelsabkommen bewirken 18 April Hamburg 20457 2015

235 TTIP – was Sie und alle im Entertainment Business über dieses Han- 18 April Frankfurt am Main 60327 delsabkommen wissen sollten! Was könnte TTIP für unsere Branche 2015 bedeuten?

236 Freihandel gefährdet die Demokratie Stoppt TTIP, CETA und TiSA! 18 April Wuppertal 42103 2015

237 Freihandelsabkommen - welche Chancen, welche Risiken? 18 April Mölln 23879 2015

238 TTIP & Kultur: Kultur soll nicht dem freien Markt ausgeliefert werden 19 April Engelskirchen 51766 2015

239 TTIP - Time To Interrupt Politics Ausstellung 20 April Berlin 10623 2015

240 Just Contracts – Investitionen in eine nachhaltige Zukunft 20 April Berlin 10785 2015

241 TTIP: Jenseits von Chlorhühnchen und Arbeitsplatzwunder 20 April Bochum 44793 2015

242 Diskussion zum Thema TTIP 20 April Gelsenkirchen 45879 2015

243 TTIP/CETA/TiSA 20 April Uelzen 29525 2015

244 DIE FOLGEN VON TTIP FÜR DIE KOMMUNEN IN MV 20 April Stralsund 18239 2015

245 TTIP: Verkauft nicht unsere Zukunft! 20 April Leverkusen 51373 2015

246 Wie das geplante Freihandelsabkommen TTIP Verbraucherschutz und 20 April Puchheim 82178 Umwelt gefährdet 2015

247 TTIP Vortrag 20 April Ramerberg 83561 2015

248 TTIP Info Point 21 April Darmstadt 64295 2015

249 Wem nützt das Freihandelsabkommen 21 April Düsseldorf 40210 2015

108 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

250 Themenforum TTIP 21 April Göttingen 37073 2015

251 Die Auswirkungen der Freihandelsabkommen auf Gütersloh 21 April Gütersloh 33330 2015

252 Grünes Kiezgespräch zum Thema "Fairer Handel" 21 April Berlin 12435 2015

253 TTIP und die Folgen für Kultur und Film 21 April Heiderlberg 69115 2015

254 Verbraucherschutz, Schiedsgerichte, Geheimniskrämerei - Ist die Kritik 22 April Berlin 10117 an TTIP gerechtfertigt? 2015

255 CETA and the Environment 22 April Berlin 10717 2015

256 TTIP - Gefahr für die Demokratie? 22 April Darmstadt 64289 2015

257 TTIP, CETA, TiSA – Was ändert sich? Transatlantische Freihandelsab- 22 April Wiesbaden 65183 kommen auf dem Prüfstand 2015

258 TTIP: Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen Europa und den USA - 22 April Düren 52349 Chancen und Risiken 2015

259 Alles nur Chlorhühnchen, oder was? 22 April Essen 45141 2015

260 Verkauft sich die Politik an die Konzerne? 22 April Emsdetten 48282 2015

261 Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP, CETA, TISA): Chancen für die Wirtschaft - 22 April Gemering 82110 Gefahren für die Bürger 2015

262 Gegen TTIP und CETA 22 April Berlin 10117 2015

263 Landsberg wehrt sich gegen TTIP & Ceta 22 April Landsberg am Lech 86899 2015

264 TTIP - Chance oder Verhängnis? 22 April Mainz-Bretzenheim 55128 2015

265 TTIP und CETA - Mehr Chancen oder mehr Risiken im transatlantischen 23 April Köln 50667 Freihandel? 2015

266 TTIP - Das Handelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA 23 April Backnang 71522 2015

267 STOP TTIP! - Die Gefahren der transatlantischen Handelsabkommen 23 April Daun 54550 TTIP und CETA 2015

268 TTIP & CETA - Was geht mich das an? 23 April Kiel 24118 2015

269 Podiumsdiskussion: TTIP - Chance oder Risiko? 23 April Mannheim 68159 2015

270 TTIP, TISA und die Kommune 23 April Troisdorf 53840 2015

271 TTIP - Eine historische Chance 23 April Frankfurt am Main 60549 2015

272 TTIP – Diskussionsveranstaltung 23 April Flensburg 24937 2015

273 Fair handeln statt TTIP! 23 April Hamburg 22765 2015

274 TTIP – Wen macht der Freihandel eigentlich frei? 23 April Hannover 30657 2015

275 TTIP und CETA - Fluch oder Segen? 24 April München 80331 2015

276 Alles TTIP oder was? - Ein Training für politisch Aktive, Aktivisten, 24 April Herzogenrath 52134 Verantwortliche und MultiplikatorInnen 2015

277 Pro und Contra zum Feihandelsabkommen TTIP 24 April Oberkochen 73447 2015

278 TTIP-Diskussion 24 April Traunreut 83371 2015

279 TTIP: Fluch oder Segen? 24 April Winnenden 71364 2015

280 TTIP - Handel ohne Grenzen - Was bedeutet das für Landwirtschaft und 25 April Wolpertshausen 74549 Verbraucherschutz? 2015

109 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

281 Gefährdet TTIP die kommunale Daseinsvorsorge? 25 April Münster 48143 2015

282 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und die zu erwartenden Auswirkungen 25 April Georgen-Peterzell 78112 auf die bäuerliche Landwirtschaft 2015

283 TTIP – eine Brücke in die Zukunft. Wird das transatlantische Freihandel- 27 April Sondershausen 99706 sabkommen wirklich halten, was es verspricht? 2015

284 TTIP - Gefahren für Demokratie und soziale Standards? 27 April Künzell 36093 2015

285 Transatlantischer Freihandel (TTIP) – Chance oder unkalkulierbares 27 April Meinerzhagen 58540 Risiko? 2015

286 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA und TiSA 27 April Schwäbisch-Hall 74523 2015

287 SPEAK!BERLIN - TTIP und weitere Freihandelsabkommen 27 April Berlin-Mitte 10115 2015

288 Thema TTIP – für Oberstufenklassen! 28 April Pinneberg 25421 2015

289 TTIP: Verhandlungssache! 28 April Berlin 10117 2015

290 Podiumsdiskussion zu den Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA 28 April Ulm 89081 2015

291 TTIP– Freihandelsabkommen. Konjunkturpaket oder Ausverkauf von 28 April Ludwigshafen am 67059 Schutzstandards? 2015 Rhein

292 Vortrag und Diskussion zu TTIP 28 April Schwelm 58332 2015

293 Brauchen wir TTIP? 28 April Berlin 10178 2015

294 TTIP, CETA und TISA – Auswirkungen auf die Kommunen 28 April Pfinztal 76327 2015

295 Freihandel: Wer profitiert und wer verliert? Globale Freihandelsabkom- 28 April Saarbrücken 66111 men und ihre Auswirkungen vor Ort 2015

296 TTIP stoppen! Die Gefahren des Freihandelsabkommens 28 April Münster 49143 2015

297 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Chance oder Risiko 28 April Stadtsteinach 95346 2015

298 TTIP: Fluch oder Segen? 28 April Düsseldorf 40213 2015

299 TTIP Veranstaltung 28 April Rockenhausen 67806 2015

300 TTIP- Chancen für den Mittelstand 28 April Freudenstadt 72250 2015

301 TTIP, CETA & TISA – Freihandelsabkommen unter der Lupe 28 April Hohenbrunn 85662 2015

302 Investor gegen Staat - Chevron vs. Ecuador 28 April Wuppertal 42103 2015

303 3. Oldenburger Abend: TTIP/CETA 28 April Oldenburg 26123 2015

304 Diskussionsrunde: CETA/TTIP und die Landwirtschaft 28 April Berghaupten 77723 2015

305 TTIP-Veranstaltung 28 April Kappelrodeck 77876 2015

306 Neues zu TTIP, content n/a, neutral 28 April Schwäbisch Hall 74523 2015

307 Das Alternative Handelsmandat, ein Gegenentwurf zu TTIP 28 April Tübingen 72074 2015

308 TTIP's most disputed issue: Investor-State Dispute Settlement 29 April Frankfurt am Main 60311 2015

309 TTIP - Was hat das Handwerk zu erwarten? 29 April Lommatzsch 01623 2015

310 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 29 April Freiburg 79098 2015

311 TTIP-Diskussionsveranstaltung 29 April Böhl-iggelheim 67459 2015

312 Freihandel ohne Grenzen? Eine Pro- und Kontra-Diskussion zu TTIP 29 April Annaberg-Buchholz 09456 2015

110 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

313 TTIP - Gut für die Umwelt? 29 April Karlsruhe 76133 2015

314 Vortrag zum Thema TTIP 29 April Bad Abbach 93077 2015

315 TTIP, TiSA & Co. – Freihandelsabkommen als Gefahr für Arbeitnehmer- 29 April Geislingen/Steige 73312 und Verbraucherschutzrechte 2015

316 TTIP und die Agrarwirtschaft 29 April Göttingen 37073 2015

317 TTIP- Gefahr für Demokratie und Rechtsstaat? 29 April Feucht 90537 2015

318 GEHEIMGERICHTE DER MÄCHTIGEN? TTIP SCHIEDSGERICHTS- 29 April München 80335 KLAUSELN IN DER DISKUSSION 2015

319 TTIP - Streitfall Freihandelsabkommen EU - USA 29 April Syke 28857 2015

320 Testfall TTIP 29 April Dortmund 44135 2015

321 TTIP und die Auswirkungen auf die Kommunen 29 April Recklinghausen 45657 2015

322 Filmreihe - Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: no! 29 April Marburg 35037 2015

323 Streitfall Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 29 April Hoppstädten-Wei- 55768 2015 ersbach

324 TTIP – Investitionsschutz, Chlorhühnchen, Hormonfleisch und sonst 30 April Kempten 87435 nichts? 2015

325 Vortrag zum TTIP-Abkommen 30 April Neustadt/Saale 01844 2015

326 Diskussionsabend über TTIP & FairTrade 30 April Bonn 53111 2015

327 TTIP im Fokus: Investitionsschutz, Verbraucherschutz und sonst nichts? 30 April Konstanz 78464 2015

328 Freihandel um jeden Preis? TTIP, CETA, …. : Transatlantische Partner- 30 April Freising 85354 schaft wie WIR sie wollen - 2015

329 Die Arbeit der Zukunft gestalten wir! 01 May 2015 Hameln 31785

330 Kul.tour `15 stoppt TTIP, CETA und TISA- 14 Cities across Germany 02 May 2015 Mannheim 68159

331 Anti-TTIP-Demo 03 May 2015 Fürsten 94538

332 Kulinarisches Kabarett 03 May 2015 Rüdenau 63924

333 Debatten in Europa: Die EUREURO-Krise und die Verhandlungen zum 04 May 2015 Lutherstadt-Witten- 06886 TTIP-Abkommen berg

334 TTIP: Mehr Handel und Investitionen – oder einfach überflüssig? 04 May 2015 Aachen 52062

335 Informationsveranstaltung TTIP, content n/a, neutral 04 May 2015 Unterhaching 82008

336 TTIP-Werkstatt 04 May 2015 Köln 50676

337 Die Bedeutung von TTIP für den Hamburger Außenhandel 04 May 2015 Hamburg 20359

338 Unser Reichtum - ihre Armut? - Entwicklungspolitik und fairer Handel 04 May 2015 Potsdam 14467

339 TTIP/CETA - Fluch oder Segen? 04 May 2015 Goch 47574

340 Ermöglicht #TTIP den Freihandel? 05 May 2015 Magdeburg 39106

341 TTIP - Chance oder Risiko 05 May 2015 Augsburg 86150

342 TTIP, content n/a, neutral 05 May 2015 Remshalden 73630

343 Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen den USA und der EU (TTIP) - Was 05 May 2015 Köln 50667 handeln wir uns ein?

344 TTIP und die Folgen für den Kulturbereich 05 May 2015 Hannover 30161

345 Licht und Schatten von TTIP - Was verhandelt Europa? 05 May 2015 Münster 48143

346 Filmreihe - Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: More 05 May 2015 Marburg 35037 than Hone

347 39. Sitzung des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Energie 06 May 2015 Berlin 10557

348 Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe TTIP 06 May 2015 Berlin 10117

349 TTIP – Was kommt im Ernährungsbereich auf uns zu? 06 May 2015 Hamburg 20099

111 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

350 TTIP - Monster, Megachance - oder einfach nützlich? 06 May 2015 Brühl 50321

351 Offene Diskussionsveranstaltung zu TTIP 06 May 2015 Altdorf 90518

352 TTIP - Chance oder Bedrohung für das Emsland? 06 May 2015 Meppen 49716

353 Förderung und Schutz von Direktinvestitionen: Welche globalen Rah- 07 May 2015 Berlin 10178 menbedingungen brauchen wir?

354 TTIP und CETA 07 May 2015 Bad Bederkesa 27624

355 TTIP and what is at stake for European GMO rules? 07 May 2015 Berlin 10117

356 Marshallplan statt TTIP: Wie sieht ein Europa der Gewerkschaften aus? 07 May 2015 Saarbrücken 66111

357 Förde Forum: TTIP - Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen - Jahr- 07 May 2015 Kiel 24105 hundertchance oder Bedrohung

358 Konzerninteressen statt Gemeinwohl? – Was wird uns TTIP mit den 07 May 2015 Meiningen 98617 USA bringen?

359 TTIP – Chancen eines Freihandelsabkommens mit den USA? 07 May 2015 Düren 52355

360 TTIP: Wie Produzenten und Länder des Südens abgehängt werden 07 May 2015 Hamm 59065

361 Was haben TTIP und Ceta mit den Kommunen zu tun 07 May 2015 Roßta 90574

362 TTIP, CETA und Co. - Demokratie in Gefahr? 07 May 2015 Vreden 48691

363 Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 07 May 2015 Meschede 59872

364 EUREUROPA und seine Öffentlichkeit: TTIP, CETA und TISA. Eine 07 May 2015 Neuss 41460 Bürgerinitiative schafft Transparenz

365 Internationales Frauenfrühstück: Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 08 May 2015 Osterholz-Scharmbeck 27711

366 TTIP* Jetzt red I 08 May 2015 Neu-Ulm 89231

367 TTIP verhindern... oder besser verhandeln 08 May 2015 Rotenburg 27356

368 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 08 May 2015 Augsburg 86150 kungen auf die Kommunen

369 TTIP - Gefahr für Demokratie und Rechtsstaat 08 May 2015 Holzkirchen 83607

370 Filmreihe - Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: 10 Milliar- 08 May 2015 Marburg 35037 den - Wie werden wir alle?

371 TTiP, Gefahren und Chancen des Handelsabkommens 08 May 2015 Stuttgart 70193

372 Streitfall TTIP 09 May 2015 Dortmund 44145

373 TTIP, CETA, TiSA - Wachstumsmotor oder Gefahr für die Demokratie? 09 May 2015 Fulda 36037

374 Kulturpolitik: TTIP, TISA und mehr 10 May 2015 Münster 48155

376 Pressekonferenz: Aktionstag Kultur braucht kein TTIP 11 May 2015 Berlin 10117

377 Diskussionsrunde zu TTIP, content n/a, neutral 11 May 2015 Mockrehna 04862

378 Freihandelsabkommen mit den USA - Fluch oder Segen? 11 May 2015 Rostock 18057

379 TTIP – das Europäisch-Amerikanische Handelsabkommen 11 May 2015 Werder 14542

380 TTIP und CETA - Chancen und Risiken transatlantischer Freihandels- 11 May 2015 Emden 26723 abkommen

381 Asyl, Griechenlandkrise, TTIP - sind die Herausforderungen für die EU 11 May 2015 Meißen 01662 noch lösbar?

382 TTIp: Treffen für EinsteigerInnen und Interessierte 11 May 2015 Leipzig 04277

383 Stop TTIP – Informations- und Diskussionsveranstaltung 11 May 2015 Castrop-Rauxel 44575

384 Themenabend TTIP 11 May 2015 Schwäbisch Gmünd 73525

385 Die Chancen und Risiken von TTIP 11 May 2015 Darmstadt 64289

386 Between TTIP and EPAs – What Future for African trade and devel- 11 May 2015 Berlin 10555 opment?

387 TTIP: Hintergründe zu den Freihandelsabkommen - 11 May 2015 Friedberg 61169

388 TTIP oder die Märchenstunde der Lobbyisten. Freihandelsabkommen 12 May 2015 Homburg 66424 frisst Demokratie

389 TTIP – wir müssen reden! / TTIP - we need to talk! 12 May 2015 Dortmund 44139

390 Fairer Handel durch TTIP, CETA, TISA und Co.? 12 May 2015 Regensburg 93053

391 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA und TiSA – Gefahr für die Demo- 12 May 2015 Stuttgart 70619 kratie?

392 TTIP kommt – Demokratie geht 12 May 2015 Neustadt 67433

112 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

393 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 12 May 2015 Gerestried 82538

394 TTIP, CETA und TISA: Chance oder Risiko? 12 May 2015 Hof 95028

395 Wie uns der Investitionsschutz die Zukunft verbaut 12 May 2015 Konstanz 78462

396 Information und Diskussion zum Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 12 May 2015 Kürnach 97273

397 TTIP - Freihandel um jeden Preis? 12 May 2015 Schwandorf 92421

398 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP – Gefahr für die europäische Demokratie? 12 May 2015 Leverkusen-Schle- 51375 busch

399 TTIP Freier Handel und Fairer Handel? – Wo stehen die Verhandlun- 12 May 2015 Elmshorn 25335 gen?

400 Aktuelle Fragen zur Transatlantischen Handels- und Investitionspartner- 13 May 2015 Berlin 10117 schaft - TTIP

401 TTIP und Schiedsgerichte – Preisgabe von Demokratie und Rechts- 13 May 2015 München 80539 staat?

402 TTIP, TISA und CETA - Angriff der Konzerne auf die Demokratie 13 May 2015 Aachen 52064

403 TTIP - Mythen, Märkte, Menschen, Chancen und Risiken des Freihandel- 13 May 2015 Siegburg 53721 sabkommens zwischen der EU und den USA

404 TTIP – eine Gefahr für Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutz 13 May 2015 Legau 87764

405 TTIP 1 - Eine Kampagne zwischen Expertise, Bürgerinitiative und Aktion 14 May 2015 Felsberg 34587

406 Anti-TTIP-Aktion anläßlich der Karlspreisverleihung 14 May 2015 Aachen 52062

407 FDP Bundesparteitag, content n/a, neutral 15 May 2015 Berlin 10963

408 TTIP 2 - Eine Kampagne zwischen Expertise, Bürgerinitiative und Aktion 15 May 2015 Felsberg 34587

409 TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 15 May 2015 Unna 59425

410 TTIP: Chance zu mehr Wohlstand oder Ausverkauf von Bürgerinteres- 15 May 2015 Langenfeld 40764 sen?

411 TTIP verstehen - Information und Diskussion 15 May 2015 Viersen 41747

412 Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA, TISA - Chance 15 May 2015 Kiel 24103 oder Gefahr für Demokratie, Sozial- und Umweltstandards?

413 Wie uns der Investitionsschutz die Zukunft verbaut 15 May 2015 Konstanz 78462

414 TTIP 3 - Eine Kampagne zwischen Expertise, Bürgerinitiative und Aktion 16 May 2015 Felsberg 34587

415 Workshop: Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA, TISA 16 May 2015 Rendsburg 24768

416 Demo: Wer TTIP sät, wird Genfood ernten und vieles mehr 16 May 2015 Marbach am Neckar 71672

417 Die deutsche TTIP-Initiative und die deutsch-amerikanischen Beziehun- 17 May 2015 Tutzig 82327 gen: Was ist noch zu retten?

418 Wie TTIP unser Leben verändern kann oder: Warum wir TTIP (nicht) 18 May 2015 Weimar 99423 brauchen

419 Weiter gegen TTIP 18 May 2015 Itzehoe 25524

420 TTIP – Gefahr für Deutschland und Europa 18 May 2015 Berlin 14057

421 Handel ohne Grenzen - ist TTIP noch zu stoppen? 18 May 2015 Berlin 10117

422 TTIP: Prosperous future or endless dispute in Transatlantic Relations? 19 May 2015 Saarbrücken 66123

423 TTIP, CETA und der Abbau der Demokratie 19 May 2015 Kassel 34117

424 Was ist TTIP? - Ein Freihandelsabkommen zwischen Chlor-Hähnchen 19 May 2015 Saarbrücken 66111 und Schiedsgerichten: Wohltat oder Schandtat?

425 TTIP – Das Freihandelsabkommen und seine Gefahren 19 May 2015 Chemnitz 09111

426 TTIP - Monster, Megachance - oder einfach nützlich? 19 May 2015 München 81667

427 TTIP, CETA, TiSA 19 May 2015 Ismaning 85737

428 Auf dem Weg in die Freihandelsfalle? 19 May 2015 Erlangen 91054

429 TTIP-Roadshow Bayern: Auftaktveranstaltung 20 May 2015 München 81669

430 Wozu ist die Europäische Union gut? 20 May 2015 Regensburg 93059

431 Veranstaltung TTIP 20 May 2015 Ingelheim 55218

432 TTIP-ein Abkommen mit sieben Siegeln! 20 May 2015 Freiburg im Breisgau 79108

433 Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) – eine Gefahr für die 20 May 2015 Karlsbad-Langen- 76307 Europäische Demokratie? steinbach

434 TTIP - Chance oder Risiko? 20 May 2015 Nagold 72202

113 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

435 TTIP, CESA, TiSA – Handelsware Kulturgut? 20 May 2015 Berlin 10585

436 TAG DER KULTURELLEN VIELFALT - AKTIONSTAG GEGEN TTIP, 21 May 2015 nationwide nation- CETA & CO wide

437 TTIP: Putting the Pedal to the Metal? 21 May 2015 Stuttgart 70372

438 TTIP ist ein trojanisches Pferd 21 May 2015 Hildesheim 31141

439 TTIP – Ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln? 21 May 2015 Berlin 10117

440 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken für die Bürger 21 May 2015 Dessau-Roßlau 06844

441 KONZERT KONTRA KONZERNE 21 May 2015 Mühldorf am Inn 84453

442 FREIER HANDEL DURCH TTIP – CHANCE ODER RISIKO FÜR DIE 21 May 2015 Mainz 55116 ERNÄHRUNGSBRANCHE?

443 TTIP - Chance mit Risiken. Das geplante europäisch-amerikanische 21 May 2015 Leipzig 04107 Freihandelsabkommen auf dem Prüfstand

444 TTIP - Chance mit Risiken 21 May 2015 Leipzig 04107

445 Pro und Contra TTIP: Kultur braucht kein TTIP! Oder doch? 21 May 2015 Berlin 10117

446 TTIP-Diskussion 21 May 2015 Waldkirch 79183

447 CETA, TTIP, TISA: Folgen der Freihandelsabkommen für: Verbraucher- 22 May 2015 Traunstein 83278 schutz & Arbeitswelt, Mittelstand und Kommunen

448 TTIP – das Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen Hintergründe, 22 May 2015 Mönchengladbach 41061 Argumente, Fakten

449 CETA, TTIP und der Rhein-Erft-Kreis 22 May 2015 Brühl 50321

450 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP – Für uns Chance oder Risiko? 22 May 2015 Altötting 84503

451 March against Monsanto & Co 23 May 2015 Krefeld 47798

452 March against Monsanto & Co 23 May 2015 München 80335

453 Geheimakte Freihandel - Fakten zu TTIP, CETA & TISA 23 May 2015 Taufkirchen 84416

454 Bericht aus dem EU-Parlament: Fagen und Antworten zu TTIP, CETA 26 May 2015 Berlin 10585 und TiSA

455 Shaping Free and Safe Transatlantic Data Flows: Benefits and Chal- 26 May 2015 Berlin 10117 lenges

456 Podiumsdiskussion zum Thema CETA / TTIP - 26 May 2015 Thiersheim 95707

457 TTIP als Chance begreifen 26 May 2015 rheda-wiedenbrück 33378

458 TTIP/CETA - Brücke in die Zukunft - Befürchtungen und Fakten zum 26 May 2015 Solingen 42697 Freihandelsabkommen zwischen den USA und der EU

459 Gesprächskreis AnStöße zu #TTIP 26 May 2015 Berlin 13053

460 TTIP und CETA: Aktueller Verhandlungsstand & kritische Debatte über 26 May 2015 Berlin 12163 die transatlantischen Freihandelsabkommen

462 Chancen und Risiken eines Transatlantischen Handels- und Investitions- 26 May 2015 Ratingen 40878 abkommens (TTIP)

463 Mit TTIP globale Standards setzen? EU, USA und der Rest der Welt - 6. 27 May 2015 Berlin 10117 Zivilgesellschaftliches Außenwirtschaftsforum in Berlin

464 TTIP – Duell der Argumente 27 May 2015 Düsseldorf 40217

465 Gefahr für den Weltfrieden? - Freihandelsabkommen als Instrumente 27 May 2015 Hamburg 20457 der Geopolitik

466 Arbeitsmarktwirtschaftliche Konsequenzen der geplanten transatlanti- 27 May 2015 Berlin 14057 schen Handelsverträge

467 TTIP Jobmotor oder Mitbestimmungskiller? 27 May 2015 Frankfurt am Main 60385

468 Der amerikanische Traum – Chancen für die deutsche Wirtschaft auf 28 May 2015 Duisburg 47249 dem US-Markt

469 TTIP Informationsabend 28 May 2015 Bonn 53115

470 Unsere Umwelt – ein Handelshemmnis? - TTIP, CETA, TiSA 28 May 2015 Schwerin 19055

471 Was bringt das geplante Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) zwischen der EU 28 May 2015 Wiesbaden 65207 und den USA?

472 Podiumsdiskussion zu TTIP, Ceta und Co 28 May 2015 Hildesheim 31134

473 Fracking! TTIP, CETA als Hintertür für die Öl- und Gasindustrie? 28 May 2015 Schwarzenbek 21493

474 TTIP und CETA – Fluch oder Segen für Wirtschaft und Staat 28 May 2015 Waldalgesheim 55425

114 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

475 Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen EU und USA - Worum geht es? 29 May 2015 Aachen 52072 Was steht auf dem Spiel?

476 TTIP - Freihandelsabkommen mit schweren Folgen für Mensch und 29 May 2015 Bad Lippspringe 33175 Natur

477 TTIP – Bedrohung oder Chance? 29 May 2015 Memmingen 87700

478 TTIP - was steckt dahinter? 30 May 2015 Frankfurt 60311

479 Info-Veranstaltung zum Thema TTIP 30 May 2015 Happurg 91230

480 Was ist TTIP? - Teil 1 01 June Lilienthal 28865 2015

481 TTIP: Pro und Contra 01 June Saarbrücken 66121 2015

482 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Chance oder Gefahr? - 01 June Hemmingen 71282 2015

483 TTIP, CETA, TiSA 01 June Ottobrunn 85521 2015

484 Die Transatlantische Partnerschaft - Ausverkauf Europäischer Werte 02 June Berlin 10115 oder Baustein für die Zukunft Europas? 2015

485 TTIP im Fokus - Wirtschaft vs. Politik? 02 June Dresden 01067 2015

486 TTIP & CETA - Chancen und Risiken von Freihandelsabkommen 02 June Buchenholz 21244 2015

487 TTIP Streitgespräch 02 June Berlin 10179 2015

488 TTIP - Chance oder unFAIRhandelbar? 02 June Münster 48143 2015

489 TTIP-Journalistenworkshop 03 June Berlin 10117 2015

490 TTIP and CETA 03 June Flensburg 24943 2015

491 TTIP und CETA - Risiko oder Chance? 03 June Herten 45699 2015

492 TTIP: Wem nützt das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen? 03 June Hannover 30169 2015

493 TTIP - Zwischen Wirtschaftsinteressen und Verbraucherschutz 03 June Düsseldorf 40225 2015

494 TTIP as an Interregional Project 03 June Nürnberg 90402 2015

495 TTIP im Rahmen des Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchentags 04 June Stuttgart 70173 2015

496 TTIP entschlüsseln 04 June Chemnitz 09126 2015

497 Gefährdet TTIP die kommunale Daseinsvorsorge? 04 June Münster 48143 2015

498 Workshop: TTIP ist nicht neu - Freihandel im globalen Kontext 04 June München 80636 2015

499 G7 Demo: TTIP stoppen, Klima retten, Armut bekämpfen 04 June München 80539 2015

500 TTIP - Das geplante Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den 04 June Staßfurt 39418 USA 2015

501 FREI(ER) HANDEL = FAIRER HANDEL? Was das Freihandelsabkom- 04 June Hannover 30159 men TTIP für die internationale Handelsordnung bedeutet 2015

502 TTIP - kann Demokratie in Europa so funktionieren? 05 June Stuttgart 70372 2015

503 Big Brother, Big Business, Big Family? - TTIP und die transatlantische 05 June Fellbach 70734 Wertegemeinschaft 2015

504 TTIP - zwischen Fluch und Segen 05 June Ludwigsfelde 14974 2015

505 Germany and America: Trade and Friendship 06 June Berlin 10117 2015

506 Preview Bundesrat + Fachgespräch TTIP 08 June Berlin 10785 2015

115 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

507 Was ist TTIP? - Teil 2 08 June Lilienthal 28865 2015

508 Diskussionsrunde zu TTIP 08 June Aalen 73430 2015

509 TTIP: Eine historische Chance fur die transatlantische Partnerschaft 08 June Frankfurt am Main 60325 2015

510 Mehr Chancen durch TTIP 08 June Düsseldorf 40212 2015

511 Um was geht es bei TTIP? Was steht in Europa an? 08 June Sinsheim 74889 2015

512 Diskussionveranstaltung zum Thema TTIP 09 June München 81829 2015

513 Neues von der TTIP-Front: Wohin neigt sich die Verhandlungswaage? 09 June Kiel 24105 2015

514 TTIP vor Ort – Folgen des transatlantischen Freihandelsabkommens für 09 June Schorndorf 73614 die Kommunen 2015

515 EPA - Nein Danke !? - Freihandel auf Kosten der Länder des Südens 09 June Bonn 53121 2015

516 Vortrag und Diskussion zum Thema TTIP 10 June Recklingshausen 45665 2015

517 Chancen und Gefahren von TTIP 10 June Münster 48143 2015

518 Pro & Contra TTIP – Die Debatte in Gesellschaft und Sozialdemokratie 10 June Kiel 24103 2015

519 Bonner Bündnis gegen TTIP: Folgen des geplanten Freihandelsabkom- 10 June Bonn 53111 mens zwischen EU und USA (TTIP) für den Süden 2015

520 TTIP - Gefährdet dieses Abkommen unsere Demokratie? 10 June Gießen 35390 2015

521 TTIP – Freihandel FÜR WEN, und noch schlimmer: WIE? 10 June Möhrfelden-Walldorf 64546 2015

522 TTIP und CETA – Chance oder Bedrohung für Europa? 10 June Freiburg 79098 2015

523 Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP) 11 June Ansbach 91522 2015

524 Diskussion & Antrag zu CETA und TTIP 11 June Hamburg 20249 2015

525 TTIP: WAS IST WIRKLICH DRAN? 11 June Frankfurt 60311 2015

526 Akte TTIP- Wie ist Protest gegen TTIP organisiert? Welche Chancen 11 June Weimar 99425 gibt es, TTIP zu stoppen? 2015

527 Podiumsdiskussion zu TTIP 11 June Henstedt-Ulzburg 24558 2015

528 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP/CETA 11 June Mitwitz 96268 2015

529 TTIP -Jetzt red i 11 June Friedberg 86316 2015

530 TTIP: Konkurrenz um eine neue Weltwirtschaftsordnung 11 June München 80336 2015

531 Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) 11 June Heitersheim 79423 2015

532 TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 11 June Stadtbergen 86391 2015

533 TTIP, Fluch oder Segen? 11 June Stuttgart 70469 2015

534 Ceta und TTIP - T2-214 12 June Bielefeld 33602 2015

535 TTIP – Fluch oder Segen? 12 June Sonthofen 87527 2015

536 EPA und TTIP – Fluch oder Segen für afrikanische Märkte? 14 June Berlin 10178 2015

537 Was ist eigentlich TTIP? 14 June Berlin 10437 2015

116 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

538 Zum geplanten Investitionsschutz von TTIP und CETA 15 June Berlin 10115 2015

538 The transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) 15 June Marburg 35037 2015

539 TTIP, oder Investorenschutz vs. Demokratie? 15 June Konstanz 78464 2015

540 TTIP – Mehr als Chlorhühnchen und Schiedsgerichte 15 June Heidelberg 69121 2015

541 Juso Talk: Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen 15 June Hamburg 20359 2015

542 Was ist TTIP und nebenbei was ist CETA und TISA? 15 June Schriesheim 69198 2015

543 Fairhandel statt Freihandel! 16 June Mannheim 68159 2015

544 Bedrohung durch TTIP, CETA und TiSA? 16 June Edling 83533 2015

545 Die deutsch-amerikanischen Wirtschaftsbeziehungen und die Kontro- 16 June Tübingen 72074 verse um TTIP 2015

546 TTIP 17 June Bad Kissingen 97688 2015

547 Die Transatlantische Freihandels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP) 17 June Erlangen 91054 auf dem Prüfstein 2015

548 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP/CETA – Chance oder Gefahr? 17 June Oberhausen 46047 2015

549 Das geplante Freihandelsabkommen TTIP aus wachstumskritischer 17 June Oldenburg 26129 Perspektive 2015

550 Pro und Contra zum Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) 17 June Selm 59379 2015

551 TTIP - Perspektiven und Einschätzungen aus Sicht der chemischen 18 June Berlin 10117 Industrie 2015

552 Kundgebung: TTIP stoppen! 18 June Duisburg 47051 2015

553 Studium Generale über TTIP 18 June Reutlingen 72762 2015

554 TTIP oder WTO - Was ist zukunftsfähig? 18 June Bremen 28195 2015

555 TTIP – Pro und Contra 18 June München 80333 2015

556 TTIP 18 June Berlin 10115 2015

557 Diskussionsveranstaltung zu TTIP 19 June Wetzlar 35578 2015

558 TTIP & Co: Chancen und Risiken 19 June Dipperz-Friesen- 36160 2015 hausen

559 TTIP, CETA, ETC 19 June Wetzlar 35578 2015

560 TTIP, Gefahr oder Chance für Europa? 19 June Eching 85386 2015

561 Was bedeutet das geplante Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 19 June Deggendorf 94469 2015

562 TTIP stoppen - Verbraucher schützen 19 June Ansbach 91522 2015

563 SPD Parteikonvent zum Thema Freihandel 20 June Berlin 10115 2015

564 TTIP - bittere Pille für unser Gesundheitswesen? 20 June Berlin-Charlottenburg 10585 2015

565 Gentech-Food, Hormonfleisch und Chlorhähnchen? Was bedeutet das 20 June Hildburghausen 98646 transatlantische Handelsabkommen (TTIP) für die VerbraucherInnen 2015 in Europa?

566 TTIP - Hintergrund und Perspektiven 21 June Würzburg 97070 2015

567 TTIP, Ceta und die Daseinsvorsorge 22 June Düsseldorf 40211 2015

117 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

568 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken 22 June Willich 47877 2015

569 KLAUS ERNST (MdB DIE LINKE) diskutiert über TTIP 22 June Flensburg 24937 2015

570 TTIP – ein Angriff auf die Demokratie 23 June Feucht 90537 2015

571 TTIP und CETA verhindern! Der Faktencheck 23 June Großenhain 01558 2015

572 TTIP - Gefahr für die Demokratie oder Segen für die lokale Wirtschaft? 23 June Bochum 44801 2015

573 Diskussionsveranstaltung zum Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen 23 June Herford 32049 2015

574 TTIP - Chancen für das 21. Jahrhundert 23 June Sundern 59846 2015

575 TTIP - das letzte Aufgebot des Krisenkapitalismus? Es steht viel auf 23 June Lübeck 23552 dem Spiel! 2015

576 TTIP – Fluch oder Segen - 23 June Andernach 56626 2015

577 Was bringt uns TTIP? 23 June Groß-Umstadt 64823 2015

578 TTIP – das Ende der Demokratie oder ein wichtiger Schritt hin zu einer 24 June Bad-Homburg 61352 besseren transatlantischen Wirtschaft? 2015

579 TTIP-Demo 24 June Bergisch-Gladbach 51427 2015

580 Das Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen und seine Auswirkungen 24 June Schwerin 19055 auf Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2015

581 TTIP - Was steckt da eigentlich drin? 24 June Osnabrück 49086 2015

582 TTIP Update – The German Point of View 24 June München 80805 2015

583 TTIP: Wer profitiert? Wer verliert? 24 June Osnabrück 49074 2015

584 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 24 June Remhagen 53424 2015

585 Tauziehen um TTIP 24 June Offenbach 63067 2015

586 TTIP – CETA – TiSA Die Welt der Freihandelsabkommen: Folgen für 24 June Greifswald 17489 den deutschen Kultur- und Bildungsbereich 2015

587 TTIP und die Auswirkungen auf Baden-Württemberg 24 June Stuttgart 70174 2015

588 TTIP-Medienworkshop 25 June Hamburg 20095 2015

589 Zukunft der EU-Integration und Transatlantischer Freihandel 25 June Berlin 10115 2015

590 TTIP, CETA & Co – Wir grillen die Freihandelsabkommen! 25 June Weiden in der Ober- 92637 2015 pfalz

591 Trade Issues Today: WTO, Transatlantic and Transpacific Agreement 25 June Hamburg 20095 2015

592 TTIP-Podiumsdiskussion 25 June Heilbronn 74076 2015

593 TTIP – was ist der aktuelle Stand der Dinge? Und was ist aus Arbeit- 25 June Koblenz-Horcheimer- 56076 nehmerInnensicht zu beachten? 2015 Höhe

594 Freihandelsfalle TTIP – Das Handelsabkommen zwischen USA und EU 25 June Nordhausen 99734 2015

595 TTIP: Konjunkturprogramm für Exportwirtschaft und Mittelstand? 25 June Bensheim 64625 2015

596 Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Eine Chance für 25 June Hamburg 20097 Wachstum und Beschäftigung oder eine Freihandelsfalle? 2015

597 Freier Handel um jeden Preis? Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkom- 25 June Husum 25813 men zwischen Europa und den USA 2015

598 Herausforderungen und Chancen der Freihandels-abkommen TTIP 25 June Schwandorf 92421 und CETA 2015

118 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

599 TTIP: Chancen für den Handelsstandort Hamburg 25 June Hamburg 20355 2015

600 Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP, CETA, TiSA): Vermeintliche Chance oder 25 June Pullach im Isartal 82049 tatsächliches Risiko für die Demokratie 2015

601 TTIP: Chancen, Risiken, Ängste??? Wir sollten darüber reden! 25 June Grasberg 28879 2015

602 TTIP: Konkurrenz um eine neue Weltwirtschaftsordnung 25 June München 80336 2015

603 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP / CETA / TISA - Fluch oder Segen? 25 June Nesselwang 87484 2015

604 CETA und TTIP – Europa- u. Verfassungsrechtliche Fragestellunge 25 June Traunstein 83278 2015

605 TTIP - Chancen und Herausforderungen 25 June Berlin 10969 2015

606 TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 26 June Lohfelden 34253 2015

607 Vortrag & Diskussion zu TTIP 26 June Altrip 67122 2015

608 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 26 June Ettingen 76275 kungen auf die Kommunen 2015

609 TTIP – Wo stehen wir heute? Chance oder Risiko? 26 June Nauheim 64569 2015

610 TTIP/CETA: Freihandel - Türöffner für Agro-Gentechnik? 26 June Kammlach 87754 2015

611 TTIP - Segen oder Fluch? 26 June Windsbach 91575 2015

612 Wem nützt TTIP? 27 June Gießen 35398 2015

613 Freihandel in der Kontroverse 27 June Hamburg 20457 2015

614 Risiken und Folgen von TTIP,CETA und TiSA 27 June Nellingen/Alb 89191 2015

615 More democratic free trade negotiations – is that even possible? 28 June Fuldatal 34233 2015

616 Making-of TTIP-Doku: Wohlstand für alle – Was bringen Freihandels- 29 June Stuttgart 70190 abkommen? 2015

617 Wem nützt TTIP? Der Streit um das Freihandelsabkommen 29 June Merzig 66663 2015

618 TTIP - Handel und Gesundheit 29 June Aachen 52062 2015

619 TTIP - Freinhandelsabkommen mit den USA - 30 June Ingolstadt 85049 2015

620 TTIP ist ein trojanisches Pferd 30 June Hildesheim 31141 2015

621 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 30 June Rosenheim 83022 2015

622 Can TTIP Be Saved? 30 June Leipzig 04107 2015

623 Wem nützt das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP)? 30 June Kulmbach 95326 2015

624 Weck-Worscht-Woi- Was hat TTIP mit Mainz zu tun? 30 June Mainz 55116 2015

625 Freier Handel = Freie Menschen? 30 June Lachendorf 29331 2015

626 TTIP – Brücke in die Zukunft 01 July 2015 Herdwangen-Schön- 88634 bach

627 TTIP und die Folgen für den Handel in Europa, Deutschland und unserer 01 July 2015 Murnau Am Staffelsee 82418 Region

628 TTIP, Ceta und Co. - eine Gefahr für die Kultur in Deutschland? 01 July 2015 Berlin 10623

629 TTIP - Transatlantische Handels- und Invest-Partnerschaft 02 July 2015 Cottbus 03046

630 TTIP: Ein schlechter Deal für alle Beteiligten? 02 July 2015 Berlin 10178

119 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

631 TTIP und CETA: Risiken für Arbeitnehmerrechte, Umwelt, Soziales und 02 July 2015 Kirchheimbolanden 67292 Demokratie!?

632 Hohe Wellen - Transatlantische Beziehungen in stürmischen Zeiten 02 July 2015 München 80636

633 TTIP - WIR MÜSSEN REDEN! 02 July 2015 Leipzig 04356

634 Streit um die Streitbeilegung – TTIP und die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit 02 July 2015 Erfurt 99084

635 TTIP: Chancen für eine neue Partnerschaft mit den USA 02 July 2015 Würzburg 97074

636 It’s the Economy, Stupid! - TTIP als Projektionsfläche für den europäi- 02 July 2015 Berlin 10969 schen Antiamerikanismus?

637 Chancen und Gefahren von TTIP - mögliche Auswirkungen auf die 02 July 2015 Ladenburg 68526 Kommunen

638 TTIP und die Folgen für den Handel in Europa, Deutschland und unserer 02 July 2015 Murnau 82418 Region

639 Freihandel oder Unterwerfung? 02 July 2015 Dachau 85221

640 TTIP- Wie uns private Schiedsgerichte die Zukunft verbauen 02 July 2015 Radolfzell 78315

641 Welthandelsabkommen TTIP 02 July 2015 Bad Orb 63619

642 TTIP aus der EU Perspektive 03 July 2015 Berlin 10785

643 Bedroht der Freihandel unsere Freiheit? 03 July 2015 Neustadt-Orla 07806

644 TTIP-Informationsveranstaltung 03 July 2015 Uelzen 29525

645 Zeitenwende oder Hysterie – Was bedeutet das Freihandelsabkommen 03 July 2015 Marquartstein 83250 TTIP für unsere Region?

646 Das Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen - Chancen und Risiken 03 July 2015 Luth.Witteberg 06886 einer neuen Wirtschaftsordnung

647 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 04 July 2015 Freiburg 28777

648 CETA, TTIP und die Folgen 05 July 2015 Esslingen am Neckar 73734

649 Freihandel und Investitionsschutz zwischen EU und USA 06 July 2015 Frankfurt am Main 60311

650 Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP – Chancen und 06 July 2015 Schweinfurt 97421 Risiken

651 TTIP - Risiko oder Chance für den Mittelstand? 06 July 2015 Landshut 84028

652 TTIP - grenzenlos - Gefahr für Mensch und Umwelt 06 July 2015 Sinsheim-Rohrbach 74889

653 TTIP und CETA - Was droht uns? 06 July 2015 Frankfurt am Main 60311

654 Die Debatte: TTIP - Gewinn oder Verlust für die Bürger? 07 July 2015 Duisburg 47057

655 Veranstaltung Freihandel kann tödlich sein: Was sich die Tabakindustrie 07 July 2015 Berlin 10969 von TTIP verspricht

656 TTIP – Chlorhühnchen oder Jobwunder? Zwischen Befürchtungen und 07 July 2015 Trier 54292 Versprechungen

657 Das geplante Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA 08 July 2015 Bergen 18528 (TTIP)

658 TTIP und was steckt dahinter: Information und Diskussion zum Freihan- 08 July 2015 Aspach 71546 delsabkommen zwischen der EU und der USA

659 Info-Veranstaltung zum Thema TTIP 08 July 2015 Billigheim-Ingenheim 76831

660 TTIP und CETA: Für und Wider Freihandelsabkommen 08 July 2015 Stuttgart-Sillenbuch 70619

661 Was verbirgt sich hinter TTIP, Ceta, Tisa? Vortrag und Gespräch 08 July 2015 Eggstätt 83125

662 “TTIP – Kein Chlorhühnchen, aber Zankapfel” 09 July 2015 Karlstadt 97753

663 TTIP und dessen Auswirkungen und Bedeutungen für den deutschen 09 July 2015 Hannover 30419 Gartenbau

664 Das geplante Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA 09 July 2015 Greifswald 17489 (TTIP)

665 TTIP: Was haben Deutsche und Niedersachsen vom Transatlantischen 09 July 2015 Wolfsburg 38440 Freihandelsabkommen

666 TTIP - Angriff auf unsere Demokratie 09 July 2015 Osterburken 74706

667 WEN ODER WAS MACHT TTIP EIGENTLICH FREI? Das Freihandels- 09 July 2015 Buchhagen 37619 abkommen zwischen Europa und den USA auf dem Prüfstand

668 SPD diskutiert über TTIP 09 July 2015 Lampertheim 68623

669 TTIP im Fokus Investitionsschutz, Verbraucherschutz und sonst nichts? 09 July 2015 Biberach 88400

670 TTIP & CO? Nein Danke! Freihandelsabkommen stoppen 09 July 2015 Coburg 96450

671 TTIP Freihandelslüge oder Freihandelschance? 10 July 2015 Frankfurt am Main 60311

120 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

672 TTIP 10 July 2015 Hammelburg 97762

673 TTIP im Fokus Investitionsschutz, Verbraucherschutz und sonst nichts? 10 July 2015 Heidenheim 89518

674 TTIP-Veranstaltung bei der Frauen Union Ehingen 10 July 2015 Ehingen 89584

675 TTIP verhindern...oder besser verhandeln? 10 July 2015 Schneverdingen 29640

676 Faire Arbeit und TTIP in Niedersachsen 11 July 2015 Hannover 30159

677 Mini Fairtrade Festival - Podiumsdiskussion zu TTIP 11 July 2015 Würzburg 97082

678 Diskussionsforum - TTIP: Unternehmen gestalten die transatlantische 13 July 2015 Freiburg 79098 Partnerschaft

679 Vorstellung der Reportage: „Was steckt hinter TTIP? Eine Spurensuche 13 July 2015 Berlin 10115

680 Wozu ist die Europäische Union gut? 14 July 2015 Kehlheim 93309

681 Bayern, USA und TTIP: Informieren, mitreden, Mitgestalten 14 July 2015 Roth 91154

682 Informationsveranstaltung zu TTIP mit FLorian Rentsch 14 July 2015 Neu-Isenburg 63263

683 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 15 July 2015 Würzburg 97070

684 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 15 July 2015 Roth 91154

685 TTIP-Freihandelsabkommen in der Kritik. Gefährdet das Abkommen 15 July 2015 Saarbrücken 66111 zwischen EU und USA die Rechte von Arbeitnehmern?

686 Vortrag und Diskussion: TTIP, CETA & gesundheitliche Risiken der 15 July 2015 Bielfeld 33615 Gentechnik

687 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 15 July 2015 Murrhardt 71540

688 TTIP im Fokus: Investitionsschutz, Verbraucherschutz, Schiedsgerichte? 15 July 2015 Herrenberg 71083

689 Thilo Bode liest in Heidenheim 15 July 2015 Heidenheim 89518

690 TTIP und CETA: Risiken für Arbeitnehmerrechte, Umwelt, Soziales und 16 July 2015 Kaiserslautern 67655 Demokratie!?

691 Welche Chancen und Risiken birgt das Freihandelsabkommen 16 July 2015 Dresden 01099

692 Bündnis: Endgültig TTIP, CETA, TTIP stoppen 16 July 2015 Düsseldorf 40233

693 Die Gedanken sind frei(gehandelt)? - TTIP und die Folgen für den 16 July 2015 Hannover 30159 Kulturbereich

694 TTIP-Abkommen – Chancen & Gefahren 16 July 2015 Mainz 55116

695 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und die Folgen für uns alle: Kritische 16 July 2015 Karlsfeld 85757 Ansichten der SPD-Europaabgeordneten

696 Das TTIP-Abkommen. Fluch oder Segen? 16 July 2015 Mülheim 45479

697 TTIP betrifft uns alle 16 July 2015 Wald-Michelbach 69483

698 Pro und Contra TTIP, CETA & Co 16 July 2015 Reutlingen 72762

699 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 17 July 2015 Untermünkheim 74547

700 TTIP - Jetzt red i 17 July 2015 Würzburg 97070

701 TTIP – Chance oder Risiko? 17 July 2015 Süssen 73079

702 Cuxland Gespräche: Freier Handel um jeden Preis? Das transatlantische 20 July 2015 Cuxhaven 27472 Freihandelsabkommen zwischen Europa und den USA

703 TTIP – Fluch oder Segen? 20 July 2015 Oldenburg 26131

704 TTIP - Welche Auswirkungen hat das Freihandelsabkommen auf unsere 20 July 2015 Osnabrück 49074 Lebensmittel?

705 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen für die Kultur- und Kreativwirtschaft? 20 July 2015 Frankfurt am Main 60311

706 Freier Handel duch TTIP – Chance oder Risiko für die Ernährungs- 20 July 2015 Mainz 55116 branche?

707 TTIP-Podiumsdiskussion an der Freien Waldorfschule Filstal 21 July 2015 Göppingen 73035

708 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 21 July 2015 Passau 94032

709 Wer wird Verlierer, wer wird Gewinner sein? 21 July 2015 Ellwangen 73479

710 Chlorhähnchen, Hormonfleisch und Gentechnik - Wird der Verbraucher- 21 July 2015 Minden 32429 schutz unter dem Deckmantel des Freihandels ausgehölt?

711 Bündnis «Münster gegen TTIP» 21 July 2015 Münster 48153

712 TTIP Freihandelsabkommen - Fluch oder Segen? Vortrag und Gespräch 21 July 2015 Eiselfing 83549

713 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 22 July 2015 Schrobenhausen 86529

121 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

714 TTIP: Chance für Europa 22 July 2015 Erlangen 91054

715 Was hat TTIP mit Speyer zu tun? 22 July 2015 Speyer 67346

716 Das geplante Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) zwischen der EU und den 23 July 2015 Güstrow 18273 USA - Statt Wohlstandsgewinne für alle, Profitmaximierung für Jonzerne und Ausverkauf der Demokratie

717 TTIP - TISA - Grexit - Flüchtlinge 23 July 2015 Krumbach 86381

718 TTIP und CETA 23 July 2015 Wettstetten 85139

719 Chance oder Risiko - Das transatlantischen Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 23 July 2015 Lahr/Schwarzwald 77933 aus Landessicht

720 TTIP, CETA, TiSA 23 July 2015 Berganger 85625

721 TTIP! Beginn eines florierenden tranatlantischen Freihandels oder Ende 23 July 2015 Oberschleißheim 85764 europäischer Rechte?

722 TTIP 23 July 2015 Geradstetten 73630

723 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 24 July 2015 Wiesloch 69168 kungen auf die Kommunen

724 TTIP - Wirkungen und Nebenwirkungen für uns alle 24 July 2015 Breitenberg 94139

725 TTIP - was steckt dahinter? 25 July 2015 Frankfurt 60594

727 TTIP « Chancen und Risiken» 27 July 2015 Großostheim 63768

728 TTIP: Was beudetet Freihandel in der neoliberalen Wirtschaftsordnung? 27 July 2015 Berlin 10115

729 30. Forum für Zukunftsfragen - Die Bedeutung von TTIP für die bayeri- 27 July 2015 Veitshöchheim 97209 sche Wirtschaft

730 TTIP – Chancen erkennen! 28 July 2015 Mirskofen 84051

731 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 29 July 2015 Coburg 96450

732 Freihandel für die GEN-Technik? TTIP - so NICHT 29 July 2015 Lauchheim 73466

733 TTIP - besser verhandeln... oder verhindern? 29 July 2015 Gütersloh 33330

734 TTIP AG 30 July 2015 Stuttgart 70173

735 TTIP 31 July 2015 Krefeld 47798

736 TTIP im Lichte der Geschichte des multilateralen Handelssystems 03 August Tübingen 72070 (GATT, WTO) 2015

737 Bündnis «Münster gegen TTIP» 04 August Münster 48153 2015

738 No title 05 August Aalen 73430 2015

739 STOP-TTIP Infostand 06 August Göttingen 37073 2015

740 TTIP - Europa und Amerika im globalen Wettbewerb 06 August Pettendorf-Mariaort 93186 2015

741 TTIP und Krieg 08 August Marburg 35039 2015

742 Gespräch zu TTIP mit Pensionärsgruppe 11 August Essen 45127 2015

743 München: AK Freihandelsfalle 12 August München 80336 2015

744 Die TTIP-Debatte: Worauf lassen wir uns ein? 12 August Dischingen 89561 2015

745 Informationsveranstaltung zu TTIP 13 August Hilchenbach 57271 2015

746 Treffen des Bielefelder Bündnisses gegen TTIP, CETA und TiSA - 13 August Bielefeld 33615 2015

747 Brühler Bündnis gegen die Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA und TISA 13 August Brühl 50321 2015

748 Amerika und Hamburg: Handel und Freundschaft 18 August Hamburg-Eimsbüttel 20144 2015

749 TTIP: Ein Kampfprogramm zur Neuordnung des Weltmarkts für Dollar- 18 August Ulm 89075 und Eurokapitalisten 2015

750 Was Du nicht über TTIP wusstest 19 August München 81541 2015

122 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

751 Podiumsdiskussion mit lokalen Bundestagsabgeordneten über TTIP 19 August Herford 32049 2015

752 TTIP, CETA und Co. - Demokratie in Gefahr? 19 August Herten 45701 2015

753 DISKUSSIONSVERANSTALTUNG TTIP 20 August Düsseldorf 40233 2015

754 Plenum des kölner Bündnisses gegen TTIP 20 August Köln-Ehrenfeld 50823 2015

755 TTIP – Chance oder Risiko für das Ruhrgebiet 20 August Bottrop 46240 2015

756 TiSA, TTIP, CETA? 21 August Gütersloh 33330 2015

757 TTIP: freie Fahrt für Konzerne? - Nicht mit dem DGB! 24 August Rheinberg 47495 2015

758 TTIP, Deutschland und die USA–eine Partnerschaft auf dem Prüfstand 24 August Düsseldorf 40213 2015

759 TTIP, Deutschland und die USA - eine Partnerschaft auf dem Prüfstand 24 August Düsseldorf 40213 2015

760 TTIP-Demo Pressekonferenz 25 August Berlin 10178 2015

761 Diskussionsrunde "TTIP" 25 August Goslar 38640 2015

762 Politik contra Bürger? TTIP und Fracking: Herausforderungen, Risiken 25 August Heek 48619 und Chancen 2015

763 Wem nützt der Freihandel? 25 August Wesel-Fusternberg 46485 2015

764 Freihandelsabkommen mit den USA und Kanada 26 August Minden 32423 2015

765 Freihandelsabkommen mit den USA - Fluch oder Segen? 26 August Telgte 48291 2015

766 TTIP – Ist das Allgäu auch in Gefahr? 26 August Sonthofen 87527 2015

767 TTIP - Monster, Megachance - oder einfach nützlich? 26 August Köln 50667 2015

768 TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 27 August Recklinghausen 45665 2015

769 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 27 August Helmstedt 38350 2015

771 Grüne Mitgliederversammlung zu TTIP 27 August Münster 48143 2015

772 Bündnis-Treffen «Endgültig TTIP, CETA, TISA stoppen>> 28 August Düsseldorf 40215 2015

773 JU Schleswig-Holstein Summer School 29 August Timmendorfer Strand 23669 2015

774 CETA, TTIP, TiSA und die Kommunen 30 August Wesel-Fusternberg 46485 2015

775 Wie christlich ist die CSU? oder: Ethik versus TTIP 01 Septem- Landshut 84032 ber 2015

776 TTIP und CO: Welche Probleme bringen sie für die Kommunen 02 Septem- Solingen 42657 ber 2015

777 TTIP kommt - Demokratie geht 02 Septem- Warendorf 48231 ber 2015

778 Was ist TTIP (die Freiheithandelszone)? 03 Septem- Wolfsburg 38440 ber 2015

780 TTIP - Konzerne auf Kaperfahrt 03 Septem- Rheine 48429 ber 2015

781 Konzept der freien Marktwirtschaft - Tendenzen des TTIP 04 Septem- Kreuth 83708 ber 2015

782 Konstanz gegen TTIP 04 Septem- Konstanz 78462 ber 2015

783 Vortrag & Diskussion zu TTIP 04 Septem- Herford 32049 ber 2015

123 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

784 TTIP - Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen: Vielfalt in Gefahr? 05 Septem- Magdeburg 39104 ber 2015

785 TTIP-freie Bergische Kaffeetafel 05 Septem- Bergisch Gladbach 51465 ber 2015

786 STOPP TTIP, TISA, CETA! Protest-Picknick 05 Septem- Berlin 12049 ber 2015

787 TTIP und Afrika 05 Septem- Bonn 53173 ber 2015

788 Boßelrunde & Quiz zum Thema Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 06 Septem- Lehrte/Immensen 31275 ber 2015

789 TTIP - Was das geplante Freihandelsabkommen für Umwelt- und 07 Septem- Sinsheim 74889 Sozialstandards bedeutet ber 2015

790 Informationsveranstaltung mit Podiumsdiskussion zu dem Themenbe- 07 Septem- Kleinwallstad 63839 reich Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP und CETA) ber 2015

791 Themenraum TTIP: Streitpunkt Freihandel 08 Septem- Berlin 10961 ber 2015

792 TTIP, CETA, TiSA stoppen! 08 Septem- Frankfurt am Main 60439 ber 2015

793 Wirtschaftstheoretische Überlegungen zu TTIP 08 Septem- Recklinghausen 45657 ber 2015

794 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, TISA und CETA 09 Septem- Varel 26316 ber 2015

795 Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe TTIP 09 Septem- Lichtenberg 10317 ber 2015

796 TTIP - ein Armutsprogramm für die ärmsten Länder der Welt? 09 Septem- Bonn 53127 ber 2015

797 Workshop “TTIP und TISA in den Kommunen” 09 Septem- Siegburg 53721 ber 2015

798 Aktuelle Stunde TTIP 09 Septem- Kassel 34117 ber 2015

799 TTIP im Alltag – Auswirkungen des geplanten Freihandelsabkommens 09 Septem- Haltern am See 45721 EU/ USA auf Verbraucher und Landwirtschaft ber 2015

800 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken 09 Septem- Berlin 12359 ber 2015

801 Was ist TTIP (die Freiheithandelszone)? 10 Septem- Wolfsburg 38440 ber 2015

802 TTIP Veranstaltung 10 Septem- Kaufbeuren 87600 ber 2015

803 Talk um TTIP 10 Septem- Quelkhorn 28870 ber 2015

804 TTIP - CETA - TISA. Die geheimen Pläne und die Folgen der Freihan- 10 Septem- Engelskirchen-Rün- 51766 delsabkommen ber 2015 derot

805 TTIP Informationsveranstaltung 10 Septem- Landau-Mörzheim 76829 ber 2015

806 TTIP: Pro & Contra 11 Septem- Frankfurt am Main 65929 ber 2015

807 Vortrag und Diskussion über das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 11 Septem- Helmstedt 38350 ber 2015

808 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Chance oder Risiko? 14 Septem- Hamburg 22159 ber 2015

809 STOP TTIP und CETA GERECHTER WELTHANDEL GEHT ANDERS 14 Septem- Ludwigshafen 67059 ber 2015

810 Muss TTIP gestoppt werden? 14 Septem- Schwaikheim 71409 ber 2015

811 Das Freihandelsabkommen der EU mit den USA (TTIP) - Gefahren und 14 Septem- Wörth am Rhein 76744 Chancen für die soziale Marktwirtschaft ber 2015

812 Auswirkungen des Freihandelsabkommen TTIP auf den Umwelt und 15 Septem- Leipzig 04179 Verbraucherschutz ber 2015

813 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 15 Septem- Berlin 10789 ber 2015

814 TTIP - Chancen, Mythen und Risiken 15 Septem- Thurnau 95349 ber 2015

124 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

816 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken 15 Septem- Siegen 57078 ber 2015

817 Auswirkungen des Freihandelsabkommen TTIP auf den Umwelt und 15 Septem- Leipzig 04177 Verbraucherschutz ber 2015

818 TTIP stoppen! Informationen zu TTIP und CETA 15 Septem- Nürnberg 90429 ber 2015

819 Bündnis «Münster gegen TTIP» 15 Septem- Münster 48153 ber 2015

820 TTIP, CETA, TiSA & Co stoppen! Für einen gerechten Welthandel! 15 Septem- Flensburg 24937 ber 2015

821 TTIP, CETA und Co. - Demokratie in Gefahr? 15 Septem- Gladbeck 45964 ber 2015

822 TTIP unfairhandelbar Wesel 15 Septem- Wesel 46483 ber 2015

823 Demokratie in der Europäischen Union - was können wir aus dem Fall 16 Septem- Baden-Baden 76532 TTIP lernen? ber 2015

824 TTIP stoppen! - Diskussion zu TTIP 16 Septem- München 80336 ber 2015

825 TTIP stoppen! 16 Septem- Dresden 01099 ber 2015

826 TTIP-Vortrag 16 Septem- Dresden 01099 ber 2015

827 Eine gerechte globale Handelsordnung statt TTIP, EPA & Co 16 Septem- Hamburg 22765 ber 2015

828 Öffentliche Kulturförderung auf der Kippe? TTIP und die Kultur 16 Septem- Trier 54294 ber 2015

829 Statt TTIP + Zocken, lieber Zukunft 16 Septem- Baiersdorf 91083 ber 2015

830 Was ist TTIP (die Freiheithandelszone)? 17 Septem- Wolfsburg 38440 ber 2015

831 Mit uns TTIP & CETA durchschauen! 17 Septem- Wuppertal 42103 ber 2015

832 TTIP - WIR MÜSSEN REDEN! 17 Septem- Stuttgart 70173 ber 2015

833 TTIP Mögliche Folgen für uns und die 3. Welt 17 Septem- Frankenthal 67227 ber 2015

834 Worum geht es im Freihandelsabkommen TTIP? Welche Gefahren birgt 17 Septem- Dülmen 48249 TTIP für uns? ber 2015

835 Diskussionsabend zum Thema "TTIP" 17 Septem- Meißen 01662 ber 2015

836 TTIP - Chance oder Gefahr für Wirtschaft und Verbraucher 17 Septem- Gifhorn 38518 ber 2015

837 Für einen fairen Handel! TTIP & CETA stoppen! 17 Septem- Kiel 24103 ber 2015

838 TTIP Hintergrundwissen 17 Septem- Raunheim 65428 ber 2015

839 Streit-Thema TTIP: Chance oder Ausverkauf? 17 Septem- Stadtbergen 86391 ber 2015

840 Wie viel Freiheit braucht internationaler Handel? 17 Septem- Reinbek 21465 ber 2015

841 Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen den USA und der EU TTIP, TiSA 17 Septem- Erftstadt-Liblar 50374 und CETA - Gefährdung der Demokratie in den Kommunen ber 2015

842 Auswirkungen von TTIP auf Afrika 17 Septem- Ingelheim am Rhein 55218 ber 2015

843 TTIP und Arbeitnehmerrechte – haben Mindestlohn und Tarifverträge 17 Septem- Lepzig 04157 noch eine Zukunft? ber 2015

844 TTIP - Notwendig für unsere Wirtschaft oder gefährlich für Freiheit und 17 Septem- Dachau 85221 Demokratie? ber 2015

845 TTIP - Die große Unterwerfung 17 Septem- Kornwestheim 70806 ber 2015

846 TTIP - Auswirkungen auf die kommunale Daseinsvorsorge 17 Septem- Meerbusch 40667 ber 2015

125 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

847 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 17 Septem- Büren 33142 ber 2015

848 TTIP, Ceta & Co - wie geht es weiter 17 Septem- München 81539 ber 2015

849 Die Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA: Instrumente zur Sicherung 18 Septem- Berlin 10178 der ökonomischen Vorherrschaft ber 2015

850 Das Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) – eine Chance für 18 Septem- Hannover 30159 den Welthandel oder ein Irrweg ber 2015

851 CETA + TTIP = Segen oder Fluch? 18 Septem- Uetze 31311 ber 2015

852 Arbeitsschutz und Chlorhühnchen Risiken und Gefahren durch TTIP 18 Septem- Chemnitz 09111 ber 2015

853 Brühler Bündnis gegen die Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA und TISA 18 Septem- Brühl 50321 ber 2015

854 TTIP: Chance für Deutschland 18 Septem- Niebüll 25899 ber 2015

855 TTIP, CETA, TiSA- Raubtierkapitalistischen Generalangriff auf Demokra- 18 Septem- Siegen-Wittgenstein 57072 tie und soziale Grundrechte verhindern! ber 2015

856 Veranstaltung zum Thema «TTIP» 18 Septem- Ulm 89073 ber 2015

857 TTIP & CETA stoppen! 18 Septem- Ingoldstadt 85049 ber 2015

858 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 18 Septem- Böblingen 71032 kungen auf die Kommunen ber 2015

859 TTIP- Aktionstag 19 Septem- nationwide nation- ber 2015 wide

860 Demonstration gegen TTIP - Demokratie statt Konzernmach 19 Septem- Münster 48143 ber 2015

861 Podiumsdiskussion zu TTIP und CETA 19 Septem- Mainz 55116 ber 2015

862 Podiumsdiskussion zu TTIP beim ökologischen Hoffest des B 20 Septem- München 81829 ber 2015

863 Ja zu TTIP! Chancen nutzen, Interessen wahren, Zukunft gestalten 21 Septem- Berlin 10115 ber 2015

864 Vortrag zu TTIP, TISA & CO 21 Septem- Neuendettelsau 91564 ber 2015

865 TTIP, CETA und Co - Freier Handel - Wer profitiert - Wer zahlt? 21 Septem- Göppingen 73033 ber 2015

866 Buchvorstellung: Petra Pinzler "Der Unfreihandel" 21 Septem- Berlin 10178 ber 2015

867 TTIP – Welche Auswirkungen hat das Freihandelsabkommen auf 21 Septem- Cuxhaven 27474 unsere Lebensmittel? ber 2015

868 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Chance oder Risiko? 21 Septem- Hamburg 22159 ber 2015

869 Chancen und Potenziale des Freihandelsabkommens mit den USA 21 Septem- Augsburg 86150 (TTIP) ber 2015

870 Vortrag von Florian Streibl MdL zum Thema TTIP / CETA 21 Septem- Garmisch-Parten- 82467 ber 2015 kirchen

871 TTIP das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen EU und USA frauenpoli-Tisch 21 Septem- Laatzen 30880 das Frauentischgespräch im Frauenzentrum ber 2015

872 Mit TTIP gegen den Rest der Welt? 21 Septem- Kirchheim unter Teck 73230 ber 2015

873 Handelsabkommen TTIP: Verbraucherschutz adé? 22 Septem- Mainz 55116 ber 2015

874 TTIP – Chance oder Risiko? 22 Septem- Eilenburg 04838 ber 2015

875 TTIP, die Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft 22 Septem- Cuxhaven 27474 ber 2015

876 Die Freihandelsfalle - Was verbirgt sich hinter TTIP/CETA/TISA 22 Septem- Sindelfingen 71063 ber 2015

877 TTIP im ZGV - Geostrategische Ziele 22 Septem- Mainz 55128 ber 2015

126 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

878 TTIP – Freier Handel zwischen der EU und den USA 22 Septem- Fritzlar 34560 ber 2015

879 Freihandelsabkommen, Freiheit für wen? 22 Septem- Offenburg 77652 ber 2015

880 Wie die Macht der Konzerne zusammenhängt mit TTIP und der Flücht- 22 Septem- Konstanz 78462 lingskrise ber 2015

881 TTIP - Chance oder Risiko? 23 Septem- Steinfurt 48565 ber 2015

882 TTIP - Was kommt auf die Kommunen zu? 23 Septem- Dortmund 44135 ber 2015

883 TTIP 23 Septem- Mohlsdorf 07987 ber 2015

884 TTIP - Auswirkungen vor meiner Haustür? Vortrag & Diskussion mit 23 Septem- Mühlacker 75417 Thomas Fritz ber 2015

885 Infotour "TTIP - SO NICHT! 23 Septem- Magdeburg 39104 ber 2015

886 Was ist los mit TTIP? 23 Septem- Bonn 53111 ber 2015

887 Die Fairhandlungstour, TTIP - So nicht! 23 Septem- Magdeburg 39104 ber 2015

888 TTIP - Transatlantisches Freihandels- und Investitionsabkommen 23 Septem- Spaichingen 78549 ber 2015

889 Was ist TTIP (die Freiheithandelszone)? 24 Septem- Wolfsburg 38440 ber 2015

890 TTIP – Treiber für Wohlstand und Wachstum 24 Septem- Frankfurt 60327 ber 2015

891 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 24 Septem- Kronach 96317 ber 2015

892 Bürgerdialog zum transatlantischen Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 24 Septem- Saarbrücken 66111 ber 2015

893 Öffentliches Plenum des Frankfurter Bündnis gegen TTIP, CETA & TISA 24 Septem- Frankfurt 60329 ber 2015

894 TTIP - WIR MÜSSEN REDEN! 24 Septem- Kronberg 61476 ber 2015

895 Gefahren des Freihandelsabkommens zwischen Europa und den USA 24 Septem- Strullendorf 96129 (TTIP) ber 2015

896 TTIP - wie das Freihandelsabkommen die demokratische Gesellschaft, 24 Septem- Ratingen 40878 die Umwelt und die Weltwirtschaft verändert ber 2015

897 Plenum des Bündnisses «NO TTIP Köln» 24 Septem- Köln 50667 ber 2015

898 Endstation TTIP - Profit vor Mensch & Umwelt 24 Septem- Rimsting 83253 ber 2015

899 Vortrag zu TTIP 25 Septem- Freyung 94078 ber 2015

900 GEHEIMSACHE TTIP 25 Septem- Neuzeug 4523 ber 2015

901 Gefährdet TiSA die kommunale Daseinsvorsorge im Rhein-Erft-Kreis? 25 Septem- Brühl 50321 ber 2015

902 TTIP-Diskussionsveranstaltung 25 Septem- Schwaigern/Massen- 74252 ber 2015 bachhausen

903 Wer steuert die Wirtschaft – TTIP, CETA oder die EU? 25 Septem- Ismaning 85737 ber 2015

904 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 25 Septem- Heilbronn 74072 ber 2015

905 Regionale (Kölner) Demo 'Tanzen gegen TTIP, CETA und TiSA' 26 Septem- Köln 50667 ber 2015

906 Endgültig TTIP, CETA, TISA stoppen! 26 Septem- Düsseldorf 40210 ber 2015

907 Singen gegen TTIP und CETA 26 Septem- Bielefeld 33602 ber 2015

908 Infoabend: TTIP/ CETA/ TiSA – Ein Blick durch den Vertragsdschungel 26 Septem- Berlin 10713 ber 2015

127 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

909 Welche Folgen hat TTIP für den Verbraucherschutz im Internet? 27 Septem- Bad Staffelstein 96231 ber 2015

910 Studiengruppe Wirtschaft zum Thema "TTIP" 28 Septem- Berlin 10787 ber 2015

911 Chancen und Potenziale des Freihandelsabkommens mit den USA 28 Septem- Ingolstadt 85055 (TTIP) ber 2015

912 A TTIP-ING POINT FOR EUROPE IN THE WORLD? 28 Septem- Berlin 10117 ber 2015

913 Zivilgesellschaftliches Außenwirtschaftsforum: EU Handelspolitik – 28 Septem- Berlin 10117 Wohin geht die Reise? ber 2015

914 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Chance oder Risiko? 28 Septem- Hamburg 22159 ber 2015

915 TTIP und kommunale Daseinsvorsorge 28 Septem- Leipzig 04103 ber 2015

916 Streitpunkt Freihandel - was kommt da auf uns zu? 28 Septem- Berlin 10117 ber 2015

917 TTIP/Freihandelsabkommen - Fluch oder Segen? 28 Septem- Schonstett 83137 ber 2015

918 TTIP - Chance oder Risiko, Bedeutung der europäisch-amerikanischen 28 Septem- Starnberg 82319 Freihandelszone ber 2015

919 TTIP – CETA – TISA: Die geheimen Pläne und die Folgen der Freihan- 28 Septem- Diemelstadt 34474 delsabkommen ber 2015

920 TTIP Freihandelsabkommen EU/USA 28 Septem- Bad Vilbel 61118 ber 2015

921 Was hat TTIP mit den Kommunen zu tun? 29 Septem- Pulheim 50259 ber 2015

922 FAIR HANDELN! 29 Septem- Bad Reichenhall, 83435 ber 2015 Waaggasse

923 Transparenzloch EU – Was sollen die Bürger über TTIP wissen? 29 Septem- Berlin 10179 ber 2015

924 TTIP Roadshow 30 Septem- Coburg 96450 ber 2015

925 Öffentliche TTIP-Beiratsitzung der Landesregierung 30 Septem- Stuttgart 70173 ber 2015

926 TTIP – Chance oder Risiko? 30 Septem- Borna 04552 ber 2015

927 Vorsicht Freihandel! – Strategien im Neoliberalismus 30 Septem- Leipzig 04229 ber 2015

928 TTIP und die Folgen für Demokratie und Sozialstaat 30 Septem- Herzogenrath 52134 ber 2015

929 TTIP und die Folgen für die Kulturförderung 30 Septem- Leipzig 04275 ber 2015

930 TTIP Geostrategische Ziele: Stärkung westlicher Werte oder Gefahren 30 Septem- Mainz 55128 für den Weltfrieden? ber 2015

931 TTIP - Chancen und Risiken des Freihandelsabkommens 30 Septem- Berlin 14163 ber 2015

932 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP stoppen 30 Septem- Lübeck 23552 ber 2015

933 TTIP: Fluch oder Segen? 30 Septem- Nennslingen 91790 ber 2015

934 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Die vorhersehbaren Folgen 30 Septem- Memmingen 87700 ber 2015

935 Was ist TTIP (die Freiheithandelszone)? 01 October Wolfsburg 38440 2015

936 127. Sitzung: TOP 4 Handelspolitik (CETA & TTIP 01 October Berlin 10115 2015

937 TTIP - Gefahr für den Arbeitsschutz?! 01 October Dresden 01279 2015

939 TTIP als Chance für den Mittelstand am Bodensee 01 October Friedrichshafen 88045 2015

940 TTIP, CETA und andere Handelsabkommen - Über die Auswirkungen 01 October Ahaus 48683 der neuen Freihandelsabkommen auf die Landwirtschaft und unser 2015 Essen und über unsere Einflussnahme

128 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

941 TTIP - wie der Mittelstand davon profitiert 01 October Coesfeld 48653 2015

942 TTIP und andere aktuelle Freihandelsabkommen - Fluch oder Segen? 01 October Köln 50672 2015

943 TTIP & CETA stoppen! Für einen gerechten Welthandel 01 October Leipzig 04209 2015

944 Europa, TTIP und TISA - Quo vadis Freie Berufe? 01 October Recklinghausen 45657 2015

945 Veranstaltung zu TTIP 01 October Markt Schwaben 85570 2015

946 TTIP, CETA, TiSA 01 October Grafing 85567 2015

947 TTIP - Konzerne auf Kapernfahrt: - Wie das geplante Freihandelsabkom- 01 October Regensburg 93047 men Verbraucherschutz und Umwelt gefährdet 2015

948 TTIP vor Ort 01 October Wildeshausen 27793 2015

949 Diskussions-Abend zu TTIP 01 October Markt Schwaben 85570 2015

950 Globalen Handel gestalten – TTIP und CETA verändern 02 October Berlin 10115 2015

951 TTIP-Tag 02 October Saarbrücken 66111 2015

952 TTIP – politische Ökonomie von Außen- und Freihandel 02 October Neuruppin 16816 2015

953 TTIP Fluch und/oder Segen!? - Teil 1 02 October Bad Sooden-Allendorf 37242 2015

954 Wie geht es weiter mit TTIP? 02 October Eichstätt, 85072 2015

955 Risiken des Freihandelsabkommens TTIP und ihren gravierenden 02 October Kösching 85092 Auswirkungen auf die Kommunen 2015

956 TTIP, CETA & TISA, Konzerne übernehmen die Macht! 02 October Michelstadt 64720 2015

957 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP – eine Gefahr für die europäische Demo- 02 October Karlsruhe 76137 kratie? 2015

958 TTIP stoppen 03 October Münster 48155 2015

959 TTIP - Das Freihandelsabkomme 05 October Bruchsal 76646 2015

960 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Chance oder Risiko? 05 October Hamburg 22159 2015

961 Berlin, Berlin - Darum fahren wir da hin! 05 October Frankfurt am Main 60594 2015

962 05.10. Kontroverse um TTIP und CETA – München 05 October München 81667 2015

963 TTIP und Demokratie 05 October Leipzig 04315 2015

964 Die Handelspolitik der EU schädigt Afrikas Wirtschaft 05 October Bielefeld 33607 2015

965 Pro und Contra TTIP, CETA & Co 05 October Reutlingen 72762 2015

966 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP Pro & Contra 05 October Marktoberdorf 87616 2015

967 Podiumsdiskussion zum Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 05 October Walldürn 74731 2015

968 Internationale Wirtschaftsbeziehungen: 'Von TTIP bis Rubelkrise' – 06 October Aurich 26603 Grundsatzaspekte und aktuelle Streitfragen der Weltwirtschaftsordnung 2015

969 TTIP Informationsveranstaltung 06 October Görlitz 02826 2015

970 TTIP – der aktuelle Stand 06 October Leipzig 04277 2015

971 TTIP - Chance oder Risiko? 06 October Karlsruhe 76137 2015

129 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

972 TTIP, CETA & TiSA bedrohen die Kommunale Selbstverwaltung 06 October Darmstadt 64283 2015

973 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 06 October Oberpframmern 85667 2015

974 Brauchen wir freien Handel? – Was genau ist eigentlich TTIP 06 October Schwegenheim 67365 2015

975 TTIP & CETA stoppen! Demo: Pressekonferenz und Fototermin 07 October Berlin 10117 2015

976 TTIP - Was Sie darüber wissen sollten 07 October Stuttgart 70191 2015

977 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 07 October Weiden/Oberpfalz 92637 2015

978 7. Runder Tisch Entwicklungspolitik: TTIP vor Ort - Wirkung der transat- 07 October Berlin 10997 lantischen Handels- und Investitionsabkommen auf Bezirke 2015

979 Chancen und Potenziale des Freihandelsabkommens mit den USA 07 October Nürnberg 90402 (TTIP) 2015

980 TTIP - Menschen vor Profite! 07 October Reichenbach/ 08468 2015 Vogtland

981 Podiumsdiskussion zu TTIP 07 October Berlin 10117 2015

982 Freihandel: Projekt der Mächtigen 07 October Hagen 58089 2015

983 Wie profitiert unsere Region vom geplanten Handelsabkommen TTIP 07 October Wörth an der Donau 93086 zwischen der EU und den USA 2015

984 TTIP und die Auswirkungen für den Mittelstand 07 October Königstein 61462 2015

985 EPAs – die kleinen Brüder von TTIP 07 October Fulda 36037 2015

986 TTIP: Chancen und Risiken 07 October Emmendingen 79312 2015

987 Wozu TTIP? Ihr fragt, Lutz antwortet 08 October WorldWideWeb World- 2015 Wide- Web

988 4. Kronacher Wirtschaftstag. TTIP: Chancen, Mythen und Risiken 08 October Kronach 96317 2015

989 Die Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, Ceta und Tisa. Die Hintergründe, die 08 October Willebadessen 34439 Folgen und die Alternative 2015

990 TTIP und CETA Chancen und Risiken von Freihandelsabkommen 08 October Karlsruhe 76137 2015

991 TTIP, Fracking und das Klima 08 October WorldWideWeb World- 2015 Wide- Web

992 TTIP - So nicht!: Fairer Handel für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Ver- 08 October Göttingen 37081 braucher 2015

993 Wem nutzt TTIP? 08 October Saarbrücken 66111 2015

994 TTIP: Auf Konfrontationskurs mit dem Rest der Welt 08 October Frankfurt am Main 60327 2015

995 Zwischen Ablehnung und Hoffnung -TTIP aus europäischer Perspektive 08 October Mainz 55116 2015

996 10 Fragen zu TTIP und CETA 08 October Bremen 28203 2015

997 Diskussion zu TTIP 08 October Eislingen 73054 2015

998 Naturfreundejugend gegen TTIP 09 October Berlin 10115 2015

999 TTIP als aktuelles Beispiel der gesellschaftlichen Politisierung in Fragen 09 October Berlin 10117 der Globalisierung 2015

1000 Protest gegen TTIP: Mobilisieren? Aber richtig! Praxisworkshop zu 09 October Berlin 10435 erfolgreicher Netzwerk- und Kampagnenarbeit 2015

1001 TTIP, CETA und TISA - braucht das jemand oder kann das weg? 09 October Traben-Trarbach 56841 2015

1002 TTIP und die Landwirtschaft in Bayern 09 October Traunstein 83278 2015

130 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1003 Rock gegen TTIP - Mobilisierungs-Party mit Konzert und DJ 09 October Berlin 10435 2015

1005 TTIP 12 October Bonn 53115 2015

1006 Investitionsschutz in bilateralen Handelsabkommen: CETA vs. TTIP? 12 October Berlin 10785 2015

1007 TTIP Diskussionsrunde 12 October Kleinjena 06618 2015

1008 Freihandel – Fairer Handel? TTIP und das multilaterale Handelssystem 12 October Berlin-Tiergarten 10785 2015

1009 Welche Auswirkungen hat das TTIP-Abkommen für die kommunale 12 October Massen 03238 Ebene? 2015

1010 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Chance oder Risiko? 12 October Hamburg 22159 2015

1011 Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen TTIP – Ein Expertenblick 12 October Ludwigsburg 71636 hinter die Kulissen 2015

1012 Informationsabend zu TTIP und CETA 12 October Pegnitz 90552 2015

1013 KMU gegen TTIP 12 October Sulingen 27232 2015

1014 TTIP Diskussion 13 October Berlin 10785 2015

1015 Handelsabkommen TTIP und CETA – ein Segen für Europa oder...? 13 October Wilhelmshaven 26382 2015

1016 TTIP: Experten-Livechat 13 October WorldWideWeb World- 2015 Wide- Web

1017 TTIP 13 October Merzig 66663 2015

1018 Gibt es eine Alternative zu TTIP und CETA? 13 October Berlin 12047 2015

1019 TTIP - Worum geht es eigentlich? 13 October Hamburg 22299 2015

1020 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 13 October Berlin 10787 2015

1021 TTIP: Kamingespräch mit Erwin Huber 13 October München 80469 2015

1022 Ethik, TTIP und die CSU? Kann TTIP die Weichen neu stellen? 13 October Freising 85354 2015

1023 Bürgerdialog - Klartext zu TTIP 13 October Garching 85748 2015

1024 Freihandelsabkommen - was bedeuten sie für mich 13 October Karlsruhe 76137 2015

1025 Freihandel und Verbraucherschutz: Warum setzen Konzerne auf TTIP 13 October Berlin-Kreuzberg 10999 & Co? 2015

1026 Kommunale Selbstverwaltung in Gefahr? TTIP, Beihilfe, Vergaberecht 14 October Nürnberg 90471 & Co. 2015

1027 TTIP – Chance oder Risiko? 14 October Heilbronn 74074 2015

1028 Freihandel und Fairer Handel - Welche Auswirkungen hat TTIP auf die 14 October Osnabrück 49074 Länder des Südens? 2015

1029 TTIP, TISA und die Folgen 14 October Nieder-Olm 55268 2015

1030 TTiP, TiSA, CETA und REFIT - was steckt dahinter? 14 October Kirchenthumbach 91281 2015

1031 Die Macher hinter den Kulissen. Wie transatlantische Netzwerke heim- 14 October Frankfurt am Main 60313 lich die Demokratie unterwandern 2015

1032 TTIP - Realität und Mythos: Schreckgespenst oder Hilfe im globalen 15 October Magdeburg 39104 Markt 2015

1033 Informationsveranstaltung zu TTIP 15 October Karlsruhe 76137 2015

1034 Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) 15 October München 80333 2015

131 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1035 CETA, TiSA, TTIP - Angriff auf die Demokratie, Rechtstaat, Umwelt- und 15 October Dülmen 48249 Verbraucherschutz! 2015

1036 TTIP, CETA, TiSA – aus der Perspektive der IG Metall 15 October Oberhausen 46047 2015

1037 Vortrag Freihandelsabkommen "TTIP" 15 October München 81539 2015

1038 TTIP – Transatlantisches Handelsabkommen EU/USA-werden damit 15 October Kaufbeuren 87600 Demokratie und Rechtsstaat ausgehebelt? 2015

1039 TTIP- Jetzt red I 15 October Erkheim 87746 2015

1040 Podiumsdiskussion zu TTIP 15 October Zeil am Main 97475 2015

1041 TTIP &CETA – So nicht: Keine Freihandelsabkommen auf Kosten der 16 October Spiesen-Elversberg 66583 Verbraucher*innen 2015

1042 Freihandelsabkommen – Risikopotenziale fur den Kulturbereich? 16 October Hamburg 20097 2015

1043 TTIP Fluch und/oder Segen!? - Teil 2 16 October Bad Sooden-Al- 37242 2015 lendorf

1044 Was erwartet uns mit TTIP und CETA? 16 October Bückeburg 31675 2015

1045 TTIP – Teufelswerk oder Chance für Europa? 16 October Cadolzburg 90556 2015

1046 TTIP am Ende? - Aktuelle Positionen der Akteure 16 October Stuttgart 70180 2015

1047 Bedroht TTIP die Entwicklungsländer? 17 October Dortmund 44147 2015

1048 Europamatinee zum TTIP 17 October Burscheid 51399 2015

1049 Welche Folgen hat TTIP für den Verbraucherschutz im Internet? 18 October Bad Staffelstein 96231 2015

1050 Freihandel mit den USA. Mehr als Konzerninteressen? 18 October Miltenberg 63897 2015

1051 Wer wird die Suppe auslöffeln?: TTIP-CETA-TISA 18 October Nienburg 31582 2015

1052 Diskussion über TTIP und CETA 19 October Freudenstadt 72250 2015

1053 TTIP: Gefahr oder Chance?- Perspektiven zur Transatlantischen Han- 19 October Frankfurt am Main 60323 dels- und Investitionspartnerschaft 2015

1054 TTIP und die Auswirkungen auf Baden-Württemberg 19 October Tübingen 72074 2015

1055 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Eine transatlantische Bedrohung für die 19 October Bremen 28195 Demokratie? 2015

1056 Informationsveranstaltung zu TTIP 19 October Gütersloh 33334 2015

1057 Transatlantischer Traum oder der Ausverkauf der Demokratie? 19 October Freiburg 79098 2015

1058 TTIP – Was ist das? Eine kritische Einführung 20 October Dresden 01097 2015

1059 TTIP – Transatlantische Handels und Investitionspartnerschaft 20 October Salzgitter-Lebenstedt 38226 2015

1060 TTIP - Eine Gefahr für unsere Demokratie?! 20 October Dahlewitz 15827 2015

1061 TTIP: Auswirkungen der geplanten Handelsabkommen CETA und TTIP 20 October Kirchdorf 85414 auf unsere heimische Landwirtschaft 2015

1062 TTIP - Europa und Amerika im globalen Wettbewerb 20 October Regensburg 93053 2015

1063 TTIP Chancen und Risiken des Freihandelsabkommen 20 October Alzenau-Hörstein 63755 2015

1064 TTIP - Ein Erfolgsrezept für die Zukunft oder das Ende der Demokratie? 21 October Ratingen 40885 2015

1065 Podiumsdiskussion zu TTIP 21 October Minden 32427 2015

132 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1066 TTIP - Chance oder Risiko? 21 October Alteglofsheim 93087 2015

1067 Freihandel oder Ausverkauf der Demokratie an die Konzerne??? 21 October Köln-Sülz 50937 2015

1068 TTIP – Duell der Argumente 21 October Neuss 41460 2015

1069 TTIP: Gefahr oder Chance? - Perspektiven zur Transatlantischen 22 October Köln 50667 Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft im Dialog zwischen Gesellschaft, 2015 Politik und Wirtschaft

1070 TTIP – Folgen für Entwicklungsländer 22 October München 80805 2015

1071 TTIP: Reinsdorfer Würstchen aus Ohio?! 22 October Lutherstadt Witten- 06886 2015 berg

1072 TTIP, Demokratie und Völkerrecht 22 October Heidelberg 69117 2015

1073 TTIP: Alle reden – Wir geben Antwort! 22 October Duisburg 47166 2015

1074 TTIP - WIR MÜSSEN REDEN! 22 October München 80636 2015

1075 TTIP - Handel im Dienste Ihrer Interessen? 22 October Wolfratshausen 82515 2015

1076 TTIP: Europa und Amerika im globalen Wettbewerb 22 October Regensburg 93053 2015

1077 TTIP - Bedroht der Freihandel unsere Freiheit? 22 October Jena 07743 2015

1078 Freihandelsabkommen in der Kritik: Eine Bedrohung für die Gesell- 22 October Bollschweil 79283 schaft? 2015

1079 TTIP - Bedroht der Freihandel unsere Freiheit? 23 October Gera 07548 2015

1080 FairHandeln statt TTIP 23 October Offenbach am Main 63065 2015

1081 Bürgerforum "Mitreden über Europa" 23 October Essen 45127 2015

1082 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 23 October Pforzheim 75175 kungen auf die Kommunen 2015

1083 TTIP/CETA: Fair statt entfesselt! Der Welthandel braucht Regeln 23 October Achim 28832 2015

1084 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen für den Mittelstand ? 23 October Senden 48308 2015

1085 Nachtcafé TTIP 23 October Bammental 69245 2015

1086 Welche Auswirkungen hat TTIP auf Schwellen- und Entwicklungslän- 26 October Bonn 53113 der? 2015

1087 Erwartungen an das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - weswegen wir es 26 October Göttingen 37073 brauchen 2015

1088 TTIP - Chancen oder Misserfolge hängen auch von uns ab 26 October München 80335 2015

1089 Freihandel – Fluch oder Segen? 26 October Aachen 52070 2015

1090 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP – Fluch oder Segen? 26 October Döbeln 04720 2015

1091 TTIP – was nützt uns das Freihandelsabkommen? 26 October Eisenach 99817 2015

1092 Was bedeutet TTIP für uns Verbraucher? 26 October Schwäbisch Gmünd 73525 2015

1093 TTIP usw.- FREIHANDEL UM JEDEN PREIS? 26 October Weinstadt-Endersbach 71384 2015

1094 TTIP-Roadshow 2015: TTIP: Neue Vorschläge zum Investorenschutz 27 October Weilheim 82362 2015

1095 TTIP und Arbeit: Auswirkungen des Freihandelsabkommens auf Sozial- 27 October Ulm 89073 standards und ArbeitnehmerInnenschutzrechte 2015

133 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1096 TTIP und die Kritik von links 27 October Naunhof 04683 2015

1097 Für und Wider – Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 27 October Velbert 42549 2015

1098 Stop TTIP, CETA – Bericht und Auswertung der Berliner Großdemo 27 October Frankfurt am Main 60329 2015

1099 TTIP – was nützt uns das Freihandelsabkommen? 27 October Gotha 99867 2015

1100 Die Gefahren von TTIP 27 October Aalen 73430 2015

1101 TTIP - Was nützt das Freihandelsabkommen? 27 October Gotha 99867 2015

1102 Kunst im Kontext: Die Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA 27 October Brühl 50321 2015

1103 TTIP – Gefahr für die europäische Demokratie? 27 October Crailsheim 74564 2015

1104 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP grenzenlos kontrolllos 27 October Waldkraiburg 84478 2015

1105 Annual Transatlantic Business 28 October Frankfurt 60308 2015

1106 56. Sitzung (öffentlich) des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft, Energie, Indust- 28 October Düsseldorf 40221 rie, Mittelstand und Handwerk 2015

1107 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 28 October Aschaffenburg 63741 2015

1108 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 28 October Augsburg 86150 2015

1109 Welche Folgen hat TTIP für regionale Unternehmen? 28 October Dortmund 44227 2015

1110 Diskussionsabend zum Thema TTIP 28 October Burgkunstadt 96224 2015

1111 TTIP-Battle 28 October Leichlingen 42799 2015

1112 TTIP, TiSA, TPP, Doha etc. – Understanding Current Trade Negotiations 29 October Mainz 55128 2015

1113 TTIP – Zukunftshoffnung oder Schreckgespenst für die Ernährungs- 29 October Frankfurt an der Oder 15230 wirtschaft? 2015

1114 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 29 October Nürnberg 90443 2015

1115 TTIP – politische Ökonomie von Außen- und Freihandel 29 October Neuruppin 16816 2015

1116 Worum geht es bei TTIP? Was steht in Europa an? 29 October Kämpfelbach 75236 2015

1117 TTIP - Chancen für eine neue Partnerschaft mit den USA 29 October Hamburg 20457 2015

1118 TTIP- Jetzt red i 29 October Dinkelscherben 86424 2015

1119 Bürgerdialog – TTIP 29 October Ascheberg 59387 2015

1120 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP grenzenlos kontrolllos 29 October Waldkraiburg 84478 2015

1121 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP zwischen der EU und den USA 29 October Mosbach 74821 2015

1122 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Chance oder Risiko!?" 29 October Baden-Baden-Hauen- 76532 2015 eberstein

1123 TTIP am Ende? - TTIP, TiSA, CETA - höher, schneller, weiter? 30 October Stuttgart 70190 2015

1124 Handeln ja, aber nicht um jeden Preis 30 October Nienburg 31582 2015

1125 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und unsere Freiheit, zu gestalten 30 October Böblingen 71032 2015

1126 TTIP in aller Munde 31 October Essen 45127 2015

134 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1127 TTIP - Handel und Freundschaft 31 October Berlin 10785 2015

1128 TTIP – Gefahr für die Demokratie 02 November Stuttgart-Weilimdorf 70499 2015

1129 Themenabend TTIP/CETA 02 November Panketal 16341 2015

1130 Was bedeutet TTIP für Kulturschaffende? 02 November Frankfurt 60322 2015

1131 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 02 November Bayreuth 95444 kungen auf die Kommunen 2015

1132 Vortrag TTIP 02 November Bickenbach 64404 2015

1133 TTIP - Freihandel um jeden Preis? 02 November Speyer 67346 2015

1134 TTIP - Risiko oder Chance für die Landwirtschaft? 02 November Lüchow 29439 2015

1135 TTIP, CETA und andere Handelsabkommen - Über die Auswirkungen 03 November Stadtlohn 48703 der neuen Freihandelsabkommen auf die Landwirtschaft und unser 2015 Essen und über unsere Einflussnahme

1136 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 03 November Lichtenfels 96215 kungen auf die Kommunen 2015

1137 TTIP – Wem nützt das neue Freihandelsabkommen? Erwartungen 03 November Lingen 49808 zwischen Total-Ökonomisierung und Wirtschaftswachstum 2015

1138 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 04 November Stuttgart 70193 2015

1139 Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit in Zeiten der TTIP-Krise und des 04 November Frankfurt am Main 60313 TTP-Erfolges 2015

1140 TTIP und das Unbehagen in der Kultur! 04 November Wuppertal-Elberfeld 42105 2015

1141 TTIP: Was ist Wahrheit, was ist Mythos? 04 November Duisburg 47051 2015

1142 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierenden Auswir- 04 November Bamberg 96047 kungen auf die Kommunen 2015

1143 Anhörung zum Thema: Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA, TiSA 05 November Wiesbaden 65183 2015

1144 TTIP stoppen - Demo am Landtag 05 November Wiesbaden 65183 2015

1145 Eurokrise, Wirtschaftspolitik und TTIP. Wo stehen wir? 05 November Kaiserslautern 67655 2015

1146 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA & TISA 05 November Nürnberg 90403 2015

1147 TTIP Chance oder Risiko? 05 November Neuendettelsau 91564 2015

1148 Stille Macht - Eine Lobbyisten-Komödie mit Evergreens und Schmacht- 05 November Unterpleichfeld 97294 fetzen 2015

1149 Debatte zu den Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA 05 November Bayreuth 95447 2015

1150 Anhörung zum Thema: Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA, TiSA 06 November Wiesbaden 65183 2015

1151 Konsequenzen von TTIP und CETA für die bäuerliche (ökologische) 06 November Mainz 55130 Landwirtschaft, Umwelt- und Verbraucherstandards sowie für den 2015 Handel mit Entwicklungsländern

1152 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken 06 November Calw 75365 2015

1153 TTIP - Kultur in Gefahr in Anhalt-Bitterfeld? 06 November Bitterfeld-Wolfen 06749 2015

1154 Stille Macht - Eine Lobbyisten-Komödie 06 November Ludwigsburg 71638 2015

1155 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen TTIP, CETA & TISA 06 November Forchheim 91301 2015

1156 TTIP/CETA/TiSA - Bedrohung für Mensch, Umwelt, Demokratie und 06 November Brühl 50321 Kommune 2015

135 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1157 TTIP, CETA ,TISA und Co - Gefahr für Arbeits-, Umwelt- und Verbrau- 06 November Konstanz 78462 cherstandards und für die Demokratie 2015

1158 Kaffee und Kuchen mit Hilde zu TTIP und CETA 07 November Crailsheim 74564 2015

1159 Rot-Rot-Grün in Thüringen, Griechenland und TTIP 07 November Bad Staffelstein 96231 2015

1160 Vom Wert des Sozialstaats – und seine Gefährdung durch TTIP & Co 08 November Freiburg im Breisgau 79098 2015

1161 Öffentliche Informations-Veranstaltung zum Thema TTIP, CETA, TiSA 09 November Varel 26316 2015

1162 TTIP, Trade, Diplomacy 10 November Bonn 53113 2015

1163 TTIP: Regulatorische Kooperation und Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutz 10 November Berlin 10117 2015

1164 TTIP – Fakten und Positionen 10 November Jena 07743 2015

1165 Warum TTIP verhindert werden muß 10 November Berlin 10585 2015

1166 Im Namen des Marktes? TTIP, seine Schiedsgerichte und die Selbstfes- 10 November Frankfurt am Main 60311 selung staatlicher Politik 2015

1167 Die Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP) – wo 11 November Stuttgart 70180 liegt das Problem? 2015

1168 Pressekonferenz zum Thema TTIP 11 November Berlin 10117 2015

1169 Atlantik oder Pazifik, TTIP oder TPP: Wo sieht Amerika die Zukunft des 11 November München 80333 Welthandels? 2015

1170 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP – Chance für mehr Wachstum und Wohl- 11 November Neuburg 86633 stand oder Angriff auf Demokratie und Rechtsstaat? 2015

1171 TTIP, CETA & Co – Ist Kultur frei (ver-)handelbar? - VERSCHOBE 11 November Berlin 10719 2015

1172 Kommunale Daseinsvorsorge - (K)Ein Thema für TTiP 12 November Berlin 10785 2015

1173 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 12 November Landshut 84036 2015

1174 TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 12 November Augsburg 86153 2015

1175 Streitthema TTIP 12 November Zittau 2763 2015

1176 TTIP, CETA und TiSA, Angriff auf Demokratie, Rechtsstaat, Umwelt und 12 November Emmerich 46446 Verbraucherschutz? 2015

1177 Veranstaltung zu TTIP 12 November Freiberg 09599 2015

1178 TTIP – Worum geht es hier eigentlich? 12 November Eschweiler 52249 2015

1179 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 12 November Bad Grönenbach 87730 2015

1180 Wir BürgerInnen müssen schön draußen bleiben! Warum TTIP die 12 November Kleve 47533 Demokratie gefährdet und was wir dagegen tun können 2015

1181 Pressegespräch der Initiative Wissenschaft gegen TTIP 13 November Berlin 10587 2015

1182 TTIP-Vortrag 13 November Heilbronn 74076 2015

1183 TTIP - Für und Wider aus ökonomischer Sicht 13 November Waldenbuch 71111 2015

1184 TTIP, CETA, TiSA - was verbirgt sich dahinter? 13 November Geretsried 82538 2015

1186 TTIP, kommunale Daseinsvorsorge und europäische Flüchtlingspolitik 13 November Bad Waldsee 88339 2015

1187 Auswirkungen von CETA und TTIP auf Kultur und Bildung 16 November Berlin 10115 2015

1188 Expertenforum USA / TTIP 16 November Frankfurt am Main 60528 2015

136 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1189 Marktkonforme Demokratie? Chancen und Risiken des Freihandelsab- 16 November Stuttgart 70174 kommens TTIP 2015

1190 TTIP - WIR MÜSSEN REDEN! 16 November Ingelheim am Rhein 55218 2015

1191 TTIP und “Better Regulation” – Was steckt dahinter? 16 November Berlin 10117 2015

1192 Was ist TTIP? 16 November Wolfratshausen 82515 2015

1193 TTIP – zwischen Für und Wider! 16 November Meschede 59872 2015

1194 Informationsabend zur Asyl- und Flüchtlingskrise sowie zu TTIP 16 November Bad Oeynhausen 32545 2015

1195 Was steckt hinter TTIP? 16 November Schwerin 19053 2015

1196 TTIP: Demokratie am Ende oder am Ende Demokratie? 16 November Castrop-Rauxel 44575 2015

1197 Über TTIP, Transformation Und Todtenhausen… 16 November Minden 32423 2015

1198 Was bei TTIP zu beachten ist: Teilen, nicht töten! Über Gier, Moral und 16 November Konstanz 78462 gelingendes Leben 2015

1199 TTIP - das geplante Handelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA 16 November Eppingen 75031 und die Auswirkungen auf Landwirtschaft, Lebensmittelsicherheit und 2015 Demokratie

1200 Ja zu TTIP! Chancen nutzen, Interessen wahren, Zukunft gestalten 17 November Wuppertal 42103 2015

1201 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 17 November Mühldorf 84453 2015

1202 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 17 November Oberndorf am Lech 86698 2015

1203 TTIP - Freihandelsabkommen zwischen den USA und der EU 17 November Cottbus 03046 2015

1204 Chancen + Risiken von TTIP aus Gewerkschaftssicht 17 November Göttingen 37073 2015

1205 Das Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen: europäische und amerika- 17 November Bonn 53113 nische Perspektiven 2015

1206 TTIP, CETA und TISA: Auswirkungen auf Kommunen und die Stadt 17 November Frankfurt am Main 60329 Frankfurt 2015

1207 TTIP, CETA, TiSA 17 November Ottobrunn 85521 2015

1208 Pro und Contra zum Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 17 November Cloppenburg 49661 2015

1209 TTIP – Freier Handel ist nicht fair 17 November Bad Säckingen 79713 2015

1210 TTIP - Chancen und Befürchtungen 18 November Osterburken 74706 2015

1211 TTIP’s Bedrohung für Lebensmittel und Bauernhöfe 18 November München 80337 2015

1212 TTIP, CETA und andere Handelsabkommen - Über die Auswirkungen 18 November Ahaus 48683 der neuen Freihandelsabkommen auf die Landwirtschaft und unser 2015 Essen und über unsere Einflussnahme

1213 TTIP - Was nützt uns das Freihandelsabkommen? 18 November Nordhausen 99755 2015

1214 TTIP: Freihandelsabkommen als Ausverkauf unserer Zukunft? 18 November Recklinghausen 45657 2015

1215 TTIP & CO? Nein Danke! Freihandelsabkommen stoppen 18 November Hanau 63450 2015

1216 TTIP Was steckt dahinter? 18 November Langenfeld 40764 2015

1217 ZVEI-Expertenforum USA/TTIP 19 November Frankfurt am Main 60528 2015

1218 Das Freihandelsabkommen EU-USA: Strategie zur Durchsetzung von 19 November Rostock-Evershagen 18106 geostrategischen Interessen der imperialistischen Hauptländer 2015

137 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1219 Webinars on Regulatory Cooperation in TTIP 19 November Webinar 86438 2015

1220 TTIP [un|ver|blümt] Experten reden Klartext 19 November Auenwald 71549 2015

1221 Was bringt uns TTIP? 19 November Cottbus 03046 2015

1222 TTIP, CETA und TISA - Fluch oder Segen? 19 November Krefeld 47798 2015

1223 TTIP betrifft uns alle 19 November Hanau 63457 2015

1224 Diskussionsveranstaltung TTIP / Europäische Flüchtlingspolitik 19 November Bad Herrenalb 76332 2015

1225 TTIP – Fluch oder Segen? 19 November Bad Bramstedt 24576 2015

1226 Mehr Flüchtlinge durch TTIP? 19 November Mühldorf a. Inn 84453 2015

1227 Inhalte und Gefahren des TTIP-Freihandelsabkommen 19 November Ganderkesee 27777 2015

1228 TTIP - Freier Handel ist nicht fair! 19 November Bad Säckingen 79713 2015

1229 TTIP – CHANCE ODER RISIKO? - Zur Bedeutung einer europä- 20 November Unterschleißheim 85716 isch-amerikanischen Freihandelszone 2015

1230 TTIP: Segen oder Fluch? - Auswirkungen des Freihandelsabkommens 20 November Straelen 47638 werden wir alle spüren! 2015

1231 TTIP: Chancen und Risiken eines transatlantischen Freihandelsabkom- 20 November Gifhorn 38518 mens – Aktueller Stand und kritische Debatte 2015

1232 Informationsabend “TTIP / Freihandelsabkommen” 20 November Endingen am Kai- 79346 2015 serstuh

1233 Die Risiken der Freihandelsabkommen und ihre gravierneden Auswir- 20 November Bruchsal 76646 kungen auf die Kommunen 2015

1234 Chancen und Risiken des freien Handels mit den USA 21 November Erfurt 99084 2015

1235 TTIP, TPP and the Rise of Mega-Regionals: Consequences for the 23 November Berlin 10785 World Trading System 2015

1236 TTIP - Ein Generalangriff auf den Sozialstaat? 23 November Bad Zwischenahn 26160 2015

1237 Accessing the Supply Chain of the Future in a Global Market Place 23 November München 80333 2015

1238 TTIP – politische Ökonomie von Außen- und Freihandel 23 November Neuruppin 16816 2015

1239 TTIP – Folgen für den Mittelstand 23 November Karlsruhe 76133 2015

1240 TTIP 23 November Kaikenried 94244 2015

1241 TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 23 November Kempten 87435 2015

1242 Alternatives Handelsmandat statt TTIP - den Kampf um die EU auf- 23 November Wesel 46483 nehmen 2015

1243 TTIP was steckt dahinter? 23 November Germering 82110 2015

1244 TTIP, TPP and the Rise of Mega-Regionals: Consequences for the 24 November Berlin 10785 World Trading System 2015

1245 Stillstand in der WTO - Ist die europäische Handelspolitik eine gute 24 November Berlin 10117 Antwort? 2015

1246 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 24 November Weißenhorn 89264 2015

1247 TTIP - Entdemokratisierung und Sozialabbau? 24 November Peine 31224 2015

1248 TTIP und die sozialdemokratischen Grundwerte – ein Konflikt? 24 November Berlin 10117 2015

1249 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 24 November Ahlen 59227 2015

138 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1250 TTIP - der Versuch einer sachgerechten Information 24 November Würzburg 97070 2015

1251 TTIP - CHANCE ODER RISIKO? Zur Bedeutung einer europaisch - 24 November Kutzenhausen 86500 amerikanischen Freihandelszone 2015

1252 TTIP Freihandelsabkommen USA – Europa Chance oder Bedrohung? 24 November Staufen 79219 2015

1253 TTIP-Forum 2015 25 November Berlin 10117 2015

1254 TTIP - ein heimlicher Staatsstreich? 25 November Ulm 89073 2015

1255 TTIP, CETA und die Schiedsgerichte 25 November Karlsruhe 76133 2015

1256 Handelsabkommen TTIP, CETA, TISA - Durchbruch für die Privatisierung 25 November Freiburg im Breisgau 79098 öffentlicher Daseinsvorsorg 2015

1257 'Von TTIP bis Rubelkrise' – Grundsatzaspekte und aktuelle Streitfragen 26 November Osnabrück 49074 der Weltwirtschaftsordnung 2015

1258 TTIP-Roadshow 2015 26 November Wolfertschwenden 87787 2015

1259 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken 26 November Stendal 39576 2015

1260 TTIP - Chance oder Risiko 26 November Gersthofen 86368 2015

1261 Freihandelsabkommen: Bereicherung oder Ausverkauf der sozialen 26 November Düsseldorf Bilk 40217 Dienste? 2015

1262 Wie verändert TTIP Europa und die Welt? – Fakten, Hoffnungen, Ängste 26 November Berlin 12043 2015

1263 “Stirbt der Weihnachtsmarkt?” TTIP und die Folgen 26 November Rückersdorf 90607 2015

1264 Stille Macht (Eine Lobbyisten-Komödie mit Evergreens & 26 November Bad Kreuznach 55543 Schmachtfetzen) 2015

1265 TTIP Bürgerdialog – Wir diskutieren das Freihandelsabkommen 27 November Hamburg 22455 2015

1266 TTIP Seminar 27 November Hanau 63450 2015

1267 STOP CETA – Licht ins Dunkel! 27 November Ulm 89073 2015

1268 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 27 November Ladenburg 68526 2015

1269 Europa kontrovers 27 November Eberswalde 16225 2015

1270 TTIP – Fluch oder Segen ? 27 November Olching 82140 2015

1271 TTIP und die Schwellenländer 28 November Kochel am See 82431 2015

1272 TTIP! Freihandel um jeden Preis -und die Folgen? 30 November Bad Malente-Grems- 23714 2015 mühlen

1273 TTIP After the TPP Deal 30 November Berlin 10117 2015

1274 Chancen und Potenziale des Freihandelsabkommens mit den USA 30 November Aschaffenburg 63739 2015

1275 TTIP – NEUE CHANCEN FÜR FAMILIENUNTERNEHMEN 30 November Hamburg 20354 2015

1276 CETA – Das Einfallstor für ausländische Investorenklagen 30 November München 80337 2015

1277 TTIP Live-Chat 01 Decem- WorldWideWeb World- ber 2015 Wide- Web

1278 TTIP - Duell der Argumente 01 Decem- Hildesheim 31134 ber 2015

1279 TiSA / TTIP – Angriff auf die öffentliche Daseinsvorsorge?! 01 Decem- Erfurt 99084 ber 2015

1280 Arbeitskreis Europa: TTIP 01 Decem- Lünen 44534 ber 2015

139 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1281 TTIP - Das Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen zwischen USA und 02 Decem- Speyer 67346 EU ber 2015

1282 Stoppt das TTIP-Handelsabkommen! 02 Decem- Essen 45127 ber 2015

1283 Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP): Chancen für die Wirtschaft – Gefahren 02 Decem- Haar 85540 für die Bürge ber 2015

1284 TTIP - Gefahr für die Demokratie & unsere Kommunen? 02 Decem- Wehr 79664 ber 2015

1285 TTIP, TPP und Tabak: Was sich die Zigarettenindustrie von Freihandels- 03 Decem- Heidelberg 69120 abkommen verspricht ber 2015

1286 TTIP - WIR MÜSSEN REDEN! 03 Decem- Berlin 10117 ber 2015

1287 TTIP – ALLES GUT FÜR DEN MITTELSTAND? 03 Decem- Kiel 24105 ber 2015

1288 Perspektivloses Europa? Welche Chancen hat der Kontinent im Rahmen 03 Decem- Kempten 87435 globaler Herausforderungen? ber 2015

1289 TTIP – Freier Handel oder freie Bürger? 03 Decem- Oldenburg 26121 ber 2015

1290 TTIP und Finanzen - Wie wirkt Europa auf die Kommunen? 03 Decem- Witten 58452 ber 2015

1291 TTIP 03 Decem- Gauting 82131 ber 2015

1292 TTIP – eine neue Ära europäischer Handelspolitik? 03 Decem- Tübingen 72074 ber 2015

1293 Infoveranstaltung zum Thema TTIP 03 Decem- Bräunlingen 78199 ber 2015

1294 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA – Chance oder Risiko? 04 Decem- Leipzig-Grünau 04207 ber 2015

1295 TTIP eine Gefahr für die Menschenrechte? 07 Decem- Würzburg 97070 ber 2015

1296 TTIP - Chancen und Risiken für den Mittelstand 07 Decem- Nürnberg 90443 ber 2015

1297 TTIP und CETA - Was geht uns der Freihandel an? 07 Decem- Kleve 47533 ber 2015

1298 Kurzvortrag und Diskussionsrunde 08 Decem- Memmingen 87700 ber 2015

1299 TTIP, ACTA & Co. — Lobbyregulierung tut not 09 Decem- Leipzig 04277 ber 2015

1300 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken für Entwicklungsländer 09 Decem- Aachen 52068 ber 2015

1301 TTIP: Chance im Welthandel oder das Ende des Verbraucherschutzes? 10 Decem- Hamburg 22299 ber 2015

1302 Neues aus Brüssel: Steueroasen, TTIP & Co 10 Decem- Bernau 16321 ber 2015

1303 TTIP – Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen: Europäische und 10 Decem- Tuttlingen 78532 deutsche Sicht ber 2015

1304 Mit TTIP & CETA zum gerechten Welthandel? 10 Decem- Mühldorf 84453 ber 2015

1305 TTIP - Gefahr für die Demokratie 10 Decem- Eppelheim 69214 ber 2015

1306 TTIP & CO? Nein Danke! Freihandelsabkommen stoppen 10 Decem- Durach 87471 ber 2015

1307 Informationsabend TTIP 11 Decem- Stadtlohn 48703 ber 2015

1308 TTIP debate & resolution 12 Decem- Berlin 10115 ber 2015

1309 Kundgebung + Übergabe des Stopp-CETA-Aufrufs von Campact an die 12 Decem- Reutlingen 72764 Grüne-Landesspitze ber 2015

1310 Chancen und Risiken internationaler Freihandelsabkommen 14 Decem- Leipzig 04109 ber 2015

1311 TTIP - mehr als ein Hühnerstreit 14 Decem- Witten 58452 ber 2015

1312 Agrarinteressen in den neuen Handels- und Investitionsabkommen 14 Decem- Göttingen 37073 ber 2015

140 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1313 TTIP & Co. – Fluch oder Segen? 16 Decem- Stuttgart 70173 ber 2015

1314 Wie TTIP und CETA stoppen? 17 Decem- Peißenberg 82380 ber 2015

1315 TTIP & CETA: Wohlstand für alle - Was bringen Freihandelsabkommen? 21 Decem- Mühldorf 84453 ber 2015

1316 TTIP – CHANCE ODER RISIKO? - Zur Bedeutung einer europä- 22 Decem- Unterschleißheim 85716 isch-amerikanischen Freihandelszone ber 2015

1317 TTIP, CETA und Co. – Auswirkungen von Freihandelsabkommen auf den 04 January Radolfzell 78315 Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutz 2016

1318 Offener Montag zu TTIP 04 January Berlin 10245 2016

1319 Naturschutztage Bodensee: TTIP - Angriff auf Umweltschutz, Demokra- 05 January Radolfzell 78315 tie und Rechtsstaat 2016

1320 TTIP - Chance oder Risiko für die Wirtschaft in Mecklenburg-Vorpom- 07 January Rostock 18055 mern 2016

1321 TTIP: Ausverkauf der Demokratie oder Must-have für die europäische 07 January Krefeld 47798 Ökonomie? 2016

1322 Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen zwischen Europa und den USA 08 January Wolfenbüttel 38300 2016

1323 2. Sitzung des TTIP-Beirats Baden-Württemberg 11 January Karlsruhe 76135 2016

1324 TTIP - Postdemokratie und Konzernherrschaft 12 January Berlin 10178 2016

1325 TTIP und die Folgen für unser Gesundheitssystem 12 January Aachen 52062 2016

1326 TTIP - Chance für Europa! 12 January Frankfurt am Main 60323 2016

1327 TTIP 12 January Aachen 52062 2016

1328 Welchen Einfluß hat TTIP möglicherweise auf die örtliche Landwirt- 13 January Hildesheim 31134 schaft 2016

1329 TTIP: Wenn Konzerne die Macht übernehmen 13 January Weissach-Flacht 71287 2016

1330 Freihandelsabkommen in einer globalisierten Welt - Wie wichtig ist 13 January Berlin 14050 TTIP? 2016

1331 Dienen Freihandelsabkommen wirklich dem freien Handel? 13 January München 80333 2016

1332 Online-Podiumsdiskussion zu Handelsabkommen TTIP 13 January WorldWideWeb World- 2016 Wide- Web

1333 TTIP: Wie weiter? 14 January Hannover-Laatzen 30880 2016

1334 Politische und ökonomische Bildung am Beispiel der Diskussion über 14 January Fulda 36039 das geplante Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA 2016 (TTIP)

1335 Beteiligung des Deutschen Bundestages an gemischten völkerrechtli- 14 January Berlin 10115 chen Abkommen der Europäischen Union 2016

1336 Sitzung mit Cecilia Malmström zu TTIP und CETA 14 January Berlin 10115 2016

1337 Der Unfreihandel 14 January Hamburg 20354 2016

1338 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Chancen und Risiken 14 January Bergheim 50126 2016

1339 TTIP: Chance oder Risiko? Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen 14 January Berlin 12555 auf dem Prüfstand 2016

1340 Ausverkauft? Die Zukunft des globalen Handels in Zeiten von TTIP und 14 January Berlin 10117 CETA 2016

1341 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Auswirkungen und Gefahren 14 January Nottuln 48301 2016

1342 Pressekonferenz: TTIP und Landwirtschaft 15 January Berlin 10117 2016

141 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1343 TTIP, CETA, TISA: Wachstumsmotor oder Gefahr für die Demokratie? 15 January Witzenhausen 37213 2016

1344 Umstrittene Freihandelsabkommen – zum Stand der Debatte 15 January Münster 48143 2016

1345 Demo "Wir haben es satt!" 16 January Berlin 10115 2016

1346 TTIP und die Chancen für den Mittelstand 17 January Stuttgart 70173 2016

1347 TTIP - Chance oder Risiko für die deutschen Bauern? 18 January Göttingen 37073 2016

1348 TTIP Diskussion 18 January Niedernhausen 65527 2016

1349 Freier Handel - Wachstum um jeden Preis? ....und die Demokratie zahlt 18 January Dülmen 48249 die Zeche 2016

1350 Plädoyer für ein faires TTIP 19 January Freiburg im Breisgau 79100 2016

1351 Internationale Wirtschaftsbeziehungen – von TTIP bis Rubelkrise 19 January Hannover 30159 2016

1352 Internationaler Gesprächskreis: TTIP 19 January Bonn 53111 2016

1353 TTIP und der Parteitag 19 January Göttingen 37073 2016

1354 Streitthema TTIP: Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 19 January Zittau 02763 2016

1355 TTIP – Transatlantische Handels und Investitionspartnerschaft 19 January Helmstedt 38350 2016

1356 TTIP & CO? Nein Danke! Freihandelsabkommen 19 January Höchstadt a.d. Aisch 91315 2016

1357 TTIP, CETA TISA - Chancen oder Gefahren? 19 January Rodenbach 63517 2016

1358 TTIP/CETA/TISA und die Landtage 19 January Mannheim 68161 2016

1359 TTIP 19 January Berlin 12205 2016

1360 TTIP –Gentechnik durch die Hintertür? 19 January Essingen 73457 2016

1361 TTIP – das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen 20 January Bonn 53113 2016

1362 TTIP, CETA, TiSA - Wie ist es um die Welthandelsordnung gestellt? 20 January Koblenz 56070 2016

1363 Reformbedarf im Investitionsschutz beim TTIP-Abkommen. Macht eine 20 January Berlin 10825 internationale 'private' Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit Sinn? 2016

1364 TTIP - Mehr Transparenz 20 January Essen 45127 2016

1365 Chance oder Risiko – Informationsveranstaltung zum transatlantischen 20 January Lahr/Schwarzwald 77933 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP 2016

1366 Veranstaltung zu TTIP 20 January Hechingen 72379 2016

1367 TTIP: Chancen für die Wirtschaft- Gefahren für die Bürger? 20 January Neubiberg 85579 2016

1368 Streitfall Freihandel: TTIP & CETA - so nicht! 20 January Marbach am Neckar 71672 2016

1369 Auf ein Gespräch zu TTIP mit Reinhard Bütikofer 21 January Oberkirch 77704 2016

1370 TTIP - Der Heilsbringer? 21 January Riesa 01587 2016

1371 TTIP: Promoting or challenging the transatlantic partnership? 21 January Göttingen 37073 2016

1372 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken: Welche Auswirkungen hat das Freihandel- 21 January Aachen 52066 sabkommen auf die Standards der sozialen Marktwirtschaft? 2016

1373 TTIP - WIR MÜSSEN REDEN! 21 January Saarbrücken 66117 2016

142 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1374 Welche Auswirkungen hat TTIP auf unsere Region? 21 January Frankfurt am Main 60323 2016

1375 Globalisierungskino: Konzerne klagen, wir zahlen 21 January Hamburg 22765 2016

1376 Schiedsgerichte in TTIP und CETA: Sind die neuen Vorschläge der 21 January Bremen 28195 Kommission ein Fortschritt oder nur ein Manöver? 2016

1377 Auswirkungen von TTIP und CETA für die Städte und Gemeinden? 21 January Bünde 32257 Werden die Kommunalpolitiker zu Statisten? 2016

1378 TTIP und CETA stoppen! 21 January Tübingen 72070 2016

1379 Freier Handel um jeden Preis? 22 January Möhnesee 59519 2016

1380 TTIP Pro und Kontra 22 January Stuttgart 70174 2016

1381 TTIP - Freihandel um jeden Preis? 22 January Unkel 53572 2016

1382 Industrielle Nahrungsmittelproduktion und TTIP 22 January Sinsheim 74889 2016

1383 Kundgebung + Übergabe des Stopp-CETA-Aufrufs von Campact an 23 January Stuttgart 70174 die SPD-Spitze 2016

1384 Politikerbefragung TTIP 23 January Kassel 34127 2016

1385 TTIP – CHANCE ODER RISIKO? Zur Bedeutung einer europäisch – 25 January München 81669 amerikanischen Freihandelszone 2016

1386 Wie werden TTIP, CETA und TISA die soziale Arbeit verändern? 25 January Frankfurt am Main 60311 2016

1387 TTIP – Was bedeutet das Handelsabkommen für die Agrar- und Ernäh- 25 January Vechta 49377 rungswirtschaft 2016

1388 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Chancen und Risiken 25 January Neustrelitz 17235 2016

1389 TTIP - Gefahr für Demokratie und Rechtsstaat? 25 January Erkner 15537 2016

1390 TTIP eine Gefahr für unsere Demokratie? 25 January Weil der Stadt 71263 2016

1391 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und CETA 25 January Laatzen 30880 2016

1392 Infoveranstaltung zum Thema TTIP 25 January Recke 49509 2016

1393 TTIP: Der Mittelstand als Profiteur 25 January Dülmen 48249 2016

1394 TTIP – CHANCE ODER RISIKO? Zur Bedeutung einer europäisch – 26 January Rosenheim 83022 amerikanischen Freihandelszone 2016

1395 TTIP – CHANCE ODER RISIKO? Zur Bedeutung einer europäisch – 26 January Rosenheim 83022 amerikanischen Freihandelszone 2016

1396 Fears and Facts - The Truth about TTIP 26 January Bonn 53113 2016

1397 TTIP, Trump und die transatlantischen Beziehungen 26 January Stuttgart 70173 2016

1398 TTIP: Worum es wirklich geht 26 January Wesel-Fusternberg 46483 2016

1399 Expertenanhörung: Standards und Normen: Welche Regeln braucht ein 27 January Berlin 10115 gutes Freihandelsabkommen? 2016

1400 TTIP – CHANCE ODER RISIKO? Zur Bedeutung einer europäisch – 27 January Rosenheim 83026 amerikanischen Freihandelszone 2016

1401 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Was kommt da wirklich auf uns zu 27 January Wismar 23966 2016

1402 Die Soziale Marktwirtschaft in Zeiten von Globalisierung und Digitali- 27 January Wiesbaden 65183 sierung 2016

1403 TTIP und Kultur: Nur ein Nebenschauplatz? 27 January Berlin 10179 2016

1404 TTIP - Konzerne profitieren, Menschen verlieren 27 January Belm 49191 2016

143 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1405 TTIP – CHANCE ODER RISIKO? Zur Bedeutung einer europäisch – 28 January München 80335 amerikanischen Freihandelszone 2016

1406 TTIP Informationsveranstaltung 28 January Deggendorf-Natter- 94469 2016 nberg

1407 TTIP, Ceta, Tisa: Die Freihandelsabkommen, ihre Folgen und die Alter- 28 January Ansbach 91522 native 2016

1408 Freihandel ohne Demokratie? Der Streit um TTIP, CETA und TiSA 28 January Berlin 10585 2016

1409 Streit über Freihandel: TTIP und CETA im Blickpunkt 29 January Lutherstadt Witten- 06886 2016 berg

1410 TTIP & CO? Nein Danke! Freihandelsabkommen stoppen 29 January Kulmbach 95326 2016

1411 CETA – Der gefährliche Bruder von TTIP 29 January Traunstein 83278 2016

1413 Handwerk und TTIP 01 February Mannheim 68159 2016

1414 TTIP & CO? Nein Danke! Freihandelsabkommen stoppen 01 February Pommelsbrunn 91224 2016

1415 Gemeinsam gegen TTIP, CETA und TISA! 01 February Schriesheim 69198 2016

1416 TTIP - Gefahr für unsere Demokratie? 01 February Wuppertal 42103 2016

1417 Einführung in das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP am Beispiel der Auswir- 02 February Stuttgart 70193 kung von TTIP auf Kleinbauern 2016

1418 Flüchtlinge und TTIP: die großen Herausforderungen für Europa 02 February Ettlingen 76275 2016

1419 Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen - TTIP 02 February Arnsberg 59821 2016

1420 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Gefahr für die europäische Demokratie 02 February Immenstaad am 88090 2016 Bodensee

1421 Klönabend rund um TTIP 02 February Hude-Wüsting 27798 2016

1422 TTIP - Was soll das bringen? 03 February Gladbeck 45964 2016

1423 CETA & TTIP stoppen und für eine demokratische, soziale und ökologi- 03 February Frankfurt am Main 60326 sche Welthandelspolitik kämpfen 2016

1424 Wie wirken sich Handelsabkommen - zB CETA, TTIP, TiSA - auf Städte 03 February Frankfurt am Main 65929 und Gemeinden aus? 2016

1425 Streitthema TTIP - Das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - 03 February Zittau 02763 Chance oder Risiko? 2016

1426 Pro und Contra. Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP und die TISA-Ver- 03 February Haltern am See 45721 handlungen 2016

1427 Das Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP) - Chancen und 04 February Kloster Lehnin 14797 Risiken 2016

1428 TTIP und CETA stoppen! 04 February Stuttgart 70199 2016

1429 TTIP – Chancen und Risiken 04 February Nürnberg 90459 2016

1430 TTIP - Stand der Verhandlungen 04 February Ottobrunn 85521 2016

1431 TTIP 04 February Erlangen 91054 2016

1432 TTIP, CETA, TiSA – was kommt auf uns zu? 04 February Bad Endorf 83093 2016

1433 TTIP - Schiedsgerichte und ihre Folgen 04 February Wallenhorst-Hollage 49134 2016

1434 Flüchtlinge, TTiP, Euro – Wie handlungsfähig ist Europa? 05 February Mogendorf 56424 2016

1435 TTIP, CETA, TISA und Co. - Wie weiter mit dem Welthandel? 08 February Braunschweig 38100 2016

1436 TTIP: Wachstumsmotor oder Gefahr für die Demokratie? 08 February Helmstedt 38350 2016

1437 Welthandel und TTIP - Was bedeutet das für die deutsche Landwirt- 08 February Meppen 49716 schaft? 2016

144 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1438 TTIP und die möglichen Folgen für die Region 09 February Meiningen 98617 2016

1439 TTIP - CETA - TISA 09 February Kümmersbruck 92245 2016

1440 TTIP: Chance für die Wirtschaft oder Angriff auf den Verbraucher- 10 February Berlin 10117 schutz? 2016

1441 Faire Handelspolitik im 21. Jahrhundert (TTIP, CETA u.a.) 10 February Goslar 38640 2016

1442 Demokratie in Gefahr?! Wie TTIP demokratische Spielregeln aushebelt 10 February Höxter 37671 2016

1443 Wie der Reichtum in die Welt kam - Die Wirkung von TTIP auf Wachs- 10 February Regensburg 93047 tum, Geld und Krisen 2016

1444 Die Risiken des Freihandelsabkommens TTIP und ihre gravierenden 10 February Longkamp 54472 Auswirkungen auf die Kommunen 2016

1445 Die Wirtschaftsabkommen EPAs 10 February Bremen 28203 2016

1446 TTIP, CETA & Co: Ist Kultur frei (ver-)handelbar? 10 February Berlin 10719 2016

1447 Viel Risiko, wenig Chance? Wie sich TTIP & Co auf Landwirtschaft und 11 February Nürnberg 90471 Bio auswirken 2016

1448 Marktkonforme Demokratie?! Wie wird TTIP uns verändern? 11 February Münster 48145 2016

1449 TTIP, CETA, usw. - Was bringen Freihandelsabkommen für die Industrie- 11 February Meschede 59872 region Südwestfalen? 2016

1450 Über Freihandelsabkommen im Allgemeinen und TTIP im Besonderen 11 February Hamburg 20355 2016

1451 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP – Was ist das? 11 February Reichelsheim-Erzbach 64385 2016

1452 TTIP, CETA und TISA: Was droht Frankfurt und den Kommunen? 11 February Frankfurt am Main 60313 2016

1453 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP - Gefahr oder Chance für Europa? 12 February Köln 50931 2016

1454 TTIP: Bedroht die Machtwirtschaft Demokratie und Mittelstand? 12 February Lörrach 79541 2016

1455 TTiP: Segen oder Fluch? 12 February Eltville 65346 2016

1456 Wie TTIP auf kleine Unternehmen wirkt 12 February München 81371 2016

1457 Chancen und Möglichkeiten von TTIP 12 February München 80331 2016

1458 Die Risiken des Freihandelsabkommens TTIP und ihre gravierenden 12 February Mainz 55118 Auswirkungen auf die Kommunen 2016

1459 TTIP versus Rheinland-Pfalz? 12 February Mainz 55128 2016

1461 TTIP, TPP and Mexico: A Chance for Trade Liberalization? 15 February Berlin 10787 2016

1462 TTIP: Konjunkturprogramm für Exportwirtschaft und Mittelstand? 15 February Böblingen 71034 2016

1463 Was bedeutet TTIP für Budenheim? 15 February Budenheim 55257 2016

1464 TTIP - Gefahr für Arbeitnehmerrechte? 16 February Oberhausen 46045 2016

1465 TTIP und andere Freihandelsabkommen aus Sicht des Umwelt- und 17 February Flintbek 24220 Verbraucherschutzes 2016

1466 Agrarexporte – Handelshemmnisse – TTIP – Bilanz 2015 – Marktaus- 17 February Berlin 10117 blick 2016 2016

1467 TTIP und die Demokratie 17 February Paderborn 33098 2016

1468 TTIP - Chance für Europa! 17 February Frankfurt am Main 60329 2016

1469 TTIP - Ist das Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen für KMU zugleich 17 February Stuttgart 70173 Chance und Herausforderung? 2016

1470 Konzerne auf Kaperfahrt - Wie TTIP Verbraucherschutz und Umwelt 17 February Sulzberg 87477 gefährdet 2016

145 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1471 TTIP: Chance oder Gefahr? 17 February Esslingen 73733 2016

1472 Konzerne klagen – Wir zahlen 17 February Teisendorf 83317 2016

1473 TTIP 17 February Ratingen 40472 2016

1474 TTIP – Wenn Konzerne deine Ernährung manipulieren 17 February Mitterteich 95666 2016

1475 Die Bedeutung des TTIP-Abkommens für das Land Bremen 18 February Bremen 28199 2016

1476 Informationsabend zum Stand der Freihandelsabkommen 18 February Hamburg 20099 2016

1477 Energiewende, HGÜ-Technik und TTIP 18 February Hausen 91353 2016

1478 Bürger im Boot: Thema TTIP 18 February Mann- 68165 2016 heim-Schwetzing- erstadt

1479 TTIP - Freier Handel ist nicht fair! 18 February Villingen-Schwen- 78056 2016 ningen

1480 TTIP, CETA, TISA – aktueller Stand / was können wir noch tun? 18 February Tutzing 82327 2016

1481 TTIP - Transatlantisches Freihandelsabkommen zwischen USA und 19 February Kloster Banz 96231 Europa 2016

1482 Spontane Stand-Demo gegen TTIP & Co. anlässlich einen Vortrages von 19 February Lüdinghausen 59348 MEP Elmar Brock zur EU 2016

1483 Was für ein Europa brauchen wir? - Die EU zwischen Friedensnobel- 19 February Merchweiler 66589 preis, Renationalisierung und Ausverkauf durch TTIP / CETA / TiSA 2016

1484 TTIP - Hintergründe zum Freihandelsabkommen 19 February Hilden 40721 2016

1485 TTIP: Bleibt Mittelstand auf der Strecke? 19 February Hechingen 72379 2016

1486 Veranstaltung zum TTIP 19 February Burscheid 51399 2016

1487 CETA, TTIP & TiSA und die Konsequenzen für Darmstadt 19 February Darmstadt 64283 2016

1488 Handelsabkommen TTIP – was wird aus Demokratie und Mittelstand? 19 February Brombach 79541 2016

1489 Freie Fahrt für Profite - Die Folgen der Freihandelsabkommen TTIP & 21 February Essen 45127 Co. für Demokratie und Menschenrechte 2016

1491 Der Unfreihandel - Die heimliche Herrschaft von Konzernen und 22 February Berlin 12203 Kanzleien 2016

1492 Schalom-Abend: TTIP 22 February Diemelstadt-Wethen 34474 2016

1493 Freihandel als Fluchtursache 23 February Witten 58452 2016

1494 Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP: Wo liegen die Grenzen transnationaler 23 February Bremen 28195 Rechtspolitik? 2016

1495 Lektürekurs: Das Freihandelsabkommen TTIP (Transatlantic Trade- and 23 February Unna 59423 Investment Partnership) 2016

1496 TTIP – eine Gefahr für unsere regionalen Unternehmen? 23 February Oedheim 74229 2016

1497 TTIP und CETA – Welche Folgen hat das für Verbraucher? 23 February Groß-Umstadt 64823 2016

1498 Freihandelsabkommen TTIP & CETA - Gefahr für unsere Demokratie? 23 February Laufenburg 79725 2016

1499 Freihandelsabkommen EU - USA/Kanada („TTIP & CETA“): Konzerne 23 February Mainz 55116 profitieren - Menschen verlieren 2016

1500 Raus aus der Freihandelsfalle: Wie geht der Widerstand gegen TTIP, 23 February Tübingen 72074 CETA und TISA weiter? 2016

1501 Für Demokratie und Sozialstaat: CETA 24 February Köln 50677 2016

146 ecipe occasional paper — no. 02/2016

Consecutive Post Event header Date Place number code

1502 TTIP und andere Freihandelsabkommen 24 February Husum 25813 2016

1503 TTIP in Italien – Aktionen und Diskussionen 24 February Heidelberg 69115 2016

1504 Informationsveranstaltung zu TTIP 25 February Wiehl 51674 2016

1505 Freihandel und Umwelt: TTIP umweltverträglich gestalte 25 February Berlin 10117 2016

1506 TTIP - Fluch oder Segen? 25 February Frankfurt am Main 60325 2016

1507 TTIP - Duell der Argumente: Fokus Landwirtschaft der Zukunft 25 February Uelzen 29525 2016

1508 TTiP - Was steckt dahinter? 25 February Leverkusen-Rhe- 51371 2016 indorf

1509 TTIP Strategie- und Aktionskonferenz 27 February Kassel 34117 2016

1510 Vortrag TTIP, Ceta, Tisa 27 February Rosenheim 83022 2016

1511 Freihandel und TTIP 27 February Kronberg im Taunus 61476 2016

1512 Chancen und Risiken des Freihandelsabkommens TTIP 27 February Schwäbisch Gmünd 73525 2016

1513 TTIP und das Handwerk 27 February Stuttgart 70191 2016

1514 TTIP zwischen Chlorhühnchen und Schiedsgerichten - Das Freihandels- 27 February Oelde 59302 abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Union und den USA 2016

1515 Zerbricht Europa? Flüchtlingskrise, Euro, Terrorismus, TTIP und Großbri- 27 February Diedorf 86420 tannien – europäische Herausforderungen im Jahre 2016 2016

1516 TTIP – Folgen für Ba-Wü und seine Kommunen 27 February Friedrichshafen 88045 2016

1517 TTIP - Freihandelsabkommen oder Freihandelsfalle? 27 February Poppenricht 92284 2016

1518 Informationen zu TTIP 29 February Wuppertal 42115 2016

1519 Chancen und Potenziale des Freihandelsabkommens mit den USA 29 February Passau 94034 (TTIP) 2016

1520 Frei handeln? Die TTIP-Kontroverse 29 February München 80539 2016

1521 TTIP: Wohin steuert Europa? 29 February Korschenbroich – 41352 2016 Kleinenbroich

1522 Informationsabend zu TTIP und CETA 29 February Goldkronach 95497 2016

1523 CETA - Der gefährliche Bruder von TTIP. Die Bedrohung unserer Demo- 29 February München 80336 kratie durch das Freihandelsabkommen EU – Kanada 2016

147